---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 94

                             Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Continues to Pursue Coverage for Class Action Suit
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Continues to Face "Toure" & "Burch" Suits
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone Tracking Devices
ARTHROCARE CORP: Securities Litigation in Texas Remains Pending
ATLAS AIR: Continues to Defend Suits Alleging Price Manipulation

BP PLC: Says Investors Aware of Risks of Running Oil & Gas Biz
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend CNX Gas Shareholders Suit
CONSOL ENERGY: Unit Continues to Defend "Hale" Suit in Virginia
CONSOL ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Addison" Suit Remains Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Hall" Suit in Pennsylvania

CONVERGYS CORPORATION: Unit Continues to Negotiate Settlement
DIRECTBUY HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Face Objections
DISH NETWORK: Appeal from Antitrust Suit Dismissal Still Pending
DISH NETWORK: Pays $60 Mil. Under Retailer Class Suit Settlement
EXTREME NETWORKS: Appeal from IPO Suit Dismissal Still Pending

HORMEL FOODS: Faces Class Action Over "Fat-Free" Labels
ILLINOIS: Transgenders File Class Action Over Birth Certificates
ILLINOIS: Deadline for Written Comments on Class Action Today
MASSACHUSETTS: Sued for Unlawfully Revoking Driver's Licenses
MCMILLIN: Class Action Over Rock Church Proceeds Today

NISOURCE INC: To Make Additional Payments Under Settlement Fund
NISOURCE INC: Court Holds Rulings in Thacker & Poplar Creek Cases
OZ MINERALS: Settles Two Class Actions for $55.1 Million
SONUS NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss IPO Appeal
STRAYER EDUCATION: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Kinnett" Suit

TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Appeals From Settlement Still Pending
TREX CO: Continues to Defend Product Defects Suit in California
USI SERVICES: Overtime Suit to Proceed as Class Action
VESTAS WIND: Accused in Colorado Suit of Misleading Investors
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Bushfire to Proceed

WASHINGTON, DC: Accused of Discovery Violation in Preschool Suit
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Sued for Hiring Driver with Tuberculosis
WESTERN DIGITAL: Accounting Hearing in "Durrani" Set for July 11
WESTERN DIGITAL: Continues to Defend "Sadaat" Suit in California
XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Posts $1.8MM March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Posts $51MM Claims Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Claims v. Dana Drop to 29T at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has $51MM March 31 Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Disputing Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Posts $1.091-Bil. Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Named in Multi-Party Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Party to Cases in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Cases v. TriMas Rise to 1,095 at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Still Has 4,400 Actions at March 25

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow's Non-Current March 31 Liability at $655MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 16,000 at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Subject to Continental Case in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Accrues $54MM March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Golar LNG Ltd. Subject to Potential Tort Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand March 31 Liability Totals $999MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Subject to Coverage Action in N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Facing 5,900 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Cites $33MM Payments at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Posts $36.8MM Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $16MM Net Costs at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Posts $489MM March 31 Obligations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Unit Emerges From Bankruptcy Protection

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Goodyear Drop to 83,300 at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Involved in Exposure Actions in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Issues Split Ruling in Gibson Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Welsh's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Ruling Issued in National College Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Portishead Worker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Torquay Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Anderson Case Held April 12 in Trenton
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Releases Draft Estimates of Mont. Toxicity
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown Case v. 23 Firms Filed April 19 in Texas

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in Pneumo Abex Case Heard April 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former John Laing Worker Awarded GBP80T Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morris Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bristol Office Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Posts $1.7MM ARO Liability at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aaron Action Open v. Hercules Offshore in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds Units Still Face Parsons Case in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Still Has Occupational Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Various Rulings in Breedlove Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Issues Various Rulings in Baker Case




                             *********

ADAMS GOLF: Continues to Pursue Coverage for Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adams Golf, Inc., continues to pursue its insurers regarding
coverage of claims under a class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

The Company maintains directors' and officers' and corporate
liability insurance to cover certain risks associated with these
securities claims filed against it or its directors and officers.
During the period covering the Company's initial public offering,
the Company maintained insurance from multiple carriers, each
insuring a different layer of exposure, up to a total of $50
million.  In June 1999, a class action lawsuit, which the Company
settled in June 2010 and finally resolved in July 2011 [sic], was
filed against the Company concerning its initial public offering.
The Company has met the financial deductible of its directors' and
officers' insurance policy for the period covered by the lawsuit.
On March 30, 2006, Zurich American Insurance Company, which
provided insurance coverage totaling $5 million for the layer of
exposure between $15 million and $20 million, notified the Company
that it was denying coverage of claims in the lawsuit because it
was allegedly not timely notified of the class action lawsuit.  On
October 11, 2007, the Company filed a suit against its former
insurance broker, Thilman & Filipini, LLC, asserting various
causes of action arising out of T&F's alleged failure to notify
Zurich of the class action lawsuit.  T&F moved to dismiss the
Company's lawsuit on the basis that the suit was premature in that
the Company had not been damaged because it had not paid any sums
in satisfaction of a judgment or settlement of the class action
securities litigation.  That motion was denied pursuant to a
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 26, 2008.  On
November 16, 2009, the Company filed a Second Amended Complaint
reasserting its causes of action against T&F and adding Zurich as
a defendant to the lawsuit, asserting various causes of action
against it arising out of its denial of coverage for the class
action lawsuit.  Zurich has answered and filed a counterclaim
against the Company seeking a declaration that the Company is not
entitled to coverage for the class action lawsuit.  The case is
currently set for trial in August 2011.  At this point in the
legal proceedings, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the
matter with any certainty.


AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Continues to Face "Toure" & "Burch" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIGROUP Corporation continues to face two lawsuits pending in
New York making substantially the same allegations that the
Company failed to pay overtime and other compensation to the
plaintiffs and other employees, according to the Company's May 3,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On November 22, 2010, a former AMERIGROUP New York, LLC marketing
representative filed a putative collective and class action
Complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New York,
LLC in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York styled as Hamel Toure, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. AMERIGROUP CORPORATION and
AMERIGROUP NEW YORK, L.L.C. f/k/a CAREPLUS, L.L.C. (Case No.:
CV10-5391).  The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the plaintiff
and certain other employees should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and during the
course of their employment should have received overtime and other
compensation under the FLSA from October 22, 2007, until the entry
of judgment and under the New York Labor Law from October 22,
2004, until the entry of judgment.  The Complaint requests
certification of the action as a class action, designation of the
action as a collective action, a declaratory judgment, injunctive
relief, an award of unpaid overtime compensation, an award of
liquidated and/or punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiff
recently amended the Complaint to include a nationwide
collective/class action on behalf of other similarly situated
former and current associates who have worked as marketing
representatives for any subsidiary health plan of the Company
during the time period from November 2007, to the present.

In addition, the Company recently learned that a Complaint making
substantially the same allegations as the Toure case has been
filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York.  The case is styled as Andrea Burch, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERIGROUP CORP., d/b/a
AMERIGROUP; AMERIGROUP NEW YORK, LLC, d/b/a AMERIGROUP (Case No.:
CV11-1895).

At this early stage of the cases, the Company is unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could
result from an unfavorable outcome because the scope and size of
the potential class has not been determined, no discovery has
occurred and no specific amount of monetary damages has been
alleged.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims against it and intends to defend itself vigorously.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone Tracking Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Times Herald-Record reports that a man in upstate New York has
filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. and two app
developers for allegedly tracking his movements through his iPhone
to sell the information to advertisers.

The lawsuit, filed by Jarret Ammer in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleges that applications by
Pandora Media and Backflip Studios use the Unique Device IDs in
iPhones and iPads to record a user's physical location throughout
the day, then sell the information to third-party advertisers,
which can then target ads at users based on their location and
preferences.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple aids and abets the tracking by not
providing users any way to delete or restrict access to the UDIDs.

"Think of all the data that one has stored on a cell phone. It's
unbelievable," said Peter Cambs Sr., an attorney speaking on
behalf of Mr. Ammer.

Unlike cookies, which are downloaded onto a computer as a user
surfs the Web and can be deleted by the user, a UDID cannot be
disabled or blocked.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, the New York Computer Crime Law, the Unfair Trade Practices
Act and trespasses to personal property, common law conversion and
unjust enrichment.

It seeks damages, costs and attorneys' fees and an injunction to
stop the companies from pursuing the practice in the future.

Apple did not respond to requests for comment.

Reached by phone on May 10, Backflip founder and CEO Julian
Farrior declined to comment.  A Pandora spokeswoman declined
comment via email.

Apple has been publicly criticized in recent days after news broke
that the company was tracking the locations of users and recording
the information to files hidden on iPhones.

A 2010 study of iPhone applications by a security expert at
Bucknell University found that the UDID that Apple assigns to
every phone makes it ripe for privacy violations.

The report, "iPhone Applications & Privacy Issues," by Eric Smith,
assistant director of information security and networking at
Bucknell, tested 57 applications available on the iPhone and found
that 68 percent of them transmit UDIDs to a remote server owned
either by the application developer or an advertising partner.

A judge must now consider whether to make the lawsuit into a class
action.  That process could take a year or more.

If the judge grants the request, the time it takes to resolve the
case will depend on whether the parties agree to settle or whether
the case goes to trial.


ARTHROCARE CORP: Securities Litigation in Texas Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArthroCare Corporation continues to defend itself against a
consolidated lawsuit captioned In Re ArthroCare Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS, currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, according to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On April 4, 2008, a putative securities class action -- McIlvaine
v. ArthroCare, et. Al -- was filed in Federal court in the
Southern District of Florida against the Company and certain of
its former executive officers, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading financial
statements and making material misrepresentations regarding the
Company's internal controls, business, and financial results.  On
October 28, 2008, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer this case to the U.S. District Court, Western District of
Texas.

On July 25, 2008, a putative securities class action -- Strong v.
ArthroCare, et. al -- was filed in Federal court in the Western
District of Texas against the Company, and certain of its current
and former executive officers, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading financial
statements and making material misrepresentations regarding the
Company's internal controls, business, and financial results.

On August 7, 2008, a derivative action -- Weil v. Baker, et. al --
was filed in Federal court in the Southern District of Florida
against the Company and its then-current directors alleging breach
of fiduciary duty based on the Company's alleged improper revenue
recognition, improper reporting of such revenue in SEC filings and
press releases, failure to maintain adequate internal controls,
and failure to supervise management.  On October 14, 2008, the
court granted the Company's motion to transfer this case to the
U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.

On March 4, 2009, a derivative action -- King v. Baker, et. al --
was filed in Federal court in the Western District of Texas
against the Company's current directors, a former director,
certain of its current and former executive officers and other
employees and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP alleging (i) disgorgement
under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; (ii) violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5; (iii) breach of
fiduciary duty; (iv) abuse of control; (v) gross mismanagement of
the Company; (vi) waste of corporate assets; (vii) insider
trading; and (viii) unjust enrichment.

On April 29, 2009, a derivative action -- Barron v. Baker, et. al
-- was filed in Federal court in the Western District of Texas
against the Company's current directors and a former director
alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on the Company's improper
revenue recognition, improper reporting of such revenue in SEC
filings and press releases, failure to maintain adequate internal
controls, and failure to supervise management.

On October 28, 2008, and thereafter, the two putative securities
class actions and the shareholder derivative actions were
consolidated and designated: In Re ArthroCare Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated) in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.  On
December 10, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' counsel
were appointed in the putative consolidated securities class
action.  The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on December 18, 2009, seeking unspecified
monetary damages and interest.  ArthroCare filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
February 16, 2010.  On July 20, 2010, the federal court issued a
ruling granting in part and denying in part ArthroCare's Motion to
Dismiss, permitting certain claims related to statements after
December 11, 2007, to continue.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


ATLAS AIR: Continues to Defend Suits Alleging Price Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
against various class action lawsuits in the United States and
Canada alleging that the Company manipulated the market price for
air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the use of
surcharges, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., is the parent company of its
principal operating subsidiary, Atlas Air, Inc., and of Polar Air
Cargo LLC -- Old Polar.

In 2010, Old Polar entered into a plea agreement with the United
States Department of Justice relating to the previously disclosed
DOJ investigation concerning alleged manipulation by cargo
carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate components for air
cargo services.  Under the terms of the agreement, Old Polar will
pay a fine of $17.4 million, payable in five annual installments.
The fine relates to an alleged agreement by Old Polar with respect
to fuel surcharges on cargo shipped from the United States to
Australia during the time period from January 2000 through April
2003.  The United States District Court for the District of
Columbia held a hearing on the plea on November 15, 2010.  The
court accepted the plea and judgment was entered the following
day, finalizing the plea agreement, in the amount of $17.4 million
as agreed.

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws.  The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on
September 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge who heard the motion to
dismiss issued a decision recommending that the Federal District
Court Judge grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
Magistrate Judge recommended that plaintiffs' claims based on the
United States antitrust laws be dismissed without prejudice so
that plaintiffs have an opportunity to cure the defects in their
complaint by pleading more specific facts, if they have any,
relevant to their federal claims.  The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the plaintiffs' claims based on state and
European Union laws be dismissed with prejudice.  Both plaintiffs
and defendants objected to portions of the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation.  In 2009, the Federal District Court
Judge issued an opinion and order, accepting the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, except for the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, instead maintaining the claims under the United States
antitrust laws on the grounds that the consolidated complaint was
sufficiently detailed to withstand a motion to dismiss.  Old Polar
and the other defendants moved for reconsideration of that portion
of the Federal District Court Judge's decision which motion was
denied on March 22, 2010.  The plaintiffs moved to join Polar Air
Cargo Worldwide, Inc., as a defendant in this case on February 10,
2011.  The Federal District Court Judge granted the plaintiffs'
motion on April 13, 2011.  Pre-trial written and document
discovery and depositions are ongoing.  The Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this litigation.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged
from bankruptcy.  In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the
injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an
order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising
prior to 2004.

The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have
also been named as defendants in civil class action suits in the
provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are
substantially similar to the class action suits in the United
States.  The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have
indicated they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the
Company and Old Polar.  The Company is unable to reasonably
predict the outcome of the litigation in Ontario and Quebec.


BP PLC: Says Investors Aware of Risks of Running Oil & Gas Biz
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
BP shareholders knew they invested in risky business, company
directors argue in a bid to stop a class action over losses from
the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

"As BP had explained to the market, liabilities resulting from
accidents are regrettable risks of running its oil and gas
business," Thomas Taylor, of Andrews Kurth in Houston, wrote on
May 6.

He asked U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison to dismiss an action
that pension funds propose to pursue for buyers of BP's American
depository shares.

The pension funds seek damages under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, claiming the directors misrepresented their commitment to
safety starting in 2005.

Their complaint recited a litany of BP explosions and other
accidents, and Mr. Taylor answered that it showed the extent of
public knowledge about drilling hazards.

"Plaintiffs allege that BP concealed undisclosed risks of a
catastrophic system failure," he wrote.

"But the market already knew that BP's business was subject to
catastrophic risks," he wrote.

He wrote that BP disclosed in annual reports to the Securities
Exchange Commission that loss of containment of hydrocarbons could
result from safety failures.

He described BP's statements on safety as "commonplace expressions
of corporate optimism, not securities fraud."

"In part because the statements are so vague, plaintiffs do not
adequately allege that they were false," he wrote.

"Statements that BP is a leader in deep water drilling are fully
consistent with deep water drilling being a risky endeavor," he
wrote.

Mr. Taylor moved on the same date to dismiss a suit the pension
funds filed for ordinary shareholders, arguing it belongs in the
United Kingdom.

"The majority of BP's ordinary shareholders are citizens of the
U.K. or another foreign country," he wrote.

"The proposed English law class in this case likely would include
hundreds of thousands of members," he wrote.

He cautioned Judge Ellison against deciding securities claims
under an entirely different code.

He wrote that there are no reported cases under the financial
disclosure statute for U.K. companies as amended in 2006.

He declared it doubtful that Ellison could bind class members
outside the United States.

"Moreover, even for class members present in the United States,
the question of whether U.K. courts would recognize a class wide
judgment as binding on them is unsettled," he wrote.

He found no danger that England would deprive plaintiffs of any
remedy or treat them unfairly.

He wrote that three of ten defendants live in the United States.

Mr. Taylor also moved to dismiss a claim from a splinter group,
the Ludlow plaintiffs, proposing a class action over statements
about safety in the Gulf of Mexico in the year before the
explosion.

The group seeks damages for holders of ordinary and American
depository shares.

Mr. Taylor wrote that they allege mismanagement, not fraud.

"Vague and optimistic statements concerning topics such as safety
and deep water drilling lack a standard against which a reasonable
investor would expect them to be pegged, and thus are immaterial
to an investment decision," he wrote.

"Lengthy descriptions of past and present safety and drilling
related matters, that plaintiffs do not adequately allege are
false, also cannot give rise to a securities claim," he wrote.

"Moreover, the information allegedly omitted from the challenged
statements -- industry wide risks, personnel matters and very
specific safety and maintenance problems -- appear material only
in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill," he wrote.

Daryl Libow, Amanda Davidoff, Richard Pepperman, Marc De Leeuw,
and Matthew Peller, all of Sullivan and Cromwell, also worked on
the motion.


CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend CNX Gas Shareholders Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself against the
consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re CNX Gas
Shareholders Litigation, according to the Company's May 3, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the
tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of the shares of CNX
Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not already own for $38.25
per share.  The two cases filed in Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court
have been stayed and the three cases filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court have been consolidated under the caption In Re CNX
Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 5377-VCL).  With one
exception, these cases also name CNX Gas and certain officers and
directors of CONSOL Energy and CNX Gas as defendants.  All five
actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy breached and/or aided
and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties purportedly owed to
CNX Gas public shareholders, essentially alleging that the $38.25
price that CONSOL Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the
tender offer and subsequent short-form merger was unfair.  Among
other things, the actions sought a permanent injunction against or
rescission of the tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.  The Delaware Court of Chancery denied an injunction
against the tender offer and CONSOL Energy completed the
acquisition of the outstanding shares of CNX Gas on June 1, 2010.
The Delaware Court of Chancery certified to the Delaware Supreme
Court the question of what legal standard should be applied to the
tender offer, which would effectively determine whether the
shareholders can proceed with a damage claim.  The Delaware
Supreme Court declined to accept the appeal pending a final
judgment.  Therefore, the lawsuit will likely go to trial,
possibly later in 2011.  CONSOL Energy believes that these actions
are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.


CONSOL ENERGY: Unit Continues to Defend "Hale" Suit in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit pending in Virginia, according to
the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010,
in the U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v.
CNX Gas Company LLC et. al.  The lawsuit alleges that the
plaintiff class consists of oil and gas owners, that the Virginia
Supreme Court has decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to
the owner of the oil and gas estate, that the Virginia Gas and Oil
Act of 1990 unconstitutionally allows force pooling of CBM, that
the Act unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 royalty to CBM
owners for gas produced under the force pooling orders, and that
the Company only relied upon control of the coal estate in force
pooling the CBM notwithstanding the Virginia Supreme Court
decision holding that if only the coal estate is controlled, the
CBM is not thereby controlled.  The lawsuit seeks a judicial
declaration of ownership of the CBM and that the entire net
proceeds of CBM production (that is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8
of net revenues since production began) be distributed to the
class members.  The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that the District Judge
decide that the deemed lease provision of the Gas and Oil Act is
constitutional as is the 1/8 royalty, and that CNX Gas need not
distribute the net proceeds to class members.  The Magistrate
Judge recommended against the dismissal of certain other claims,
none of which are believed to have any significance.  The Company
has appealed that recommendation to the trial judge and are
awaiting a decision. CONSOL Energy believes that the case is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


CONSOL ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss "Addison" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit
styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company LLC remains pending, according
to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010, in
Federal court in Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company LLC.
The case involves two primary claims: (i) the plaintiff and
similarly situated CNX Gas lessors identified as conflicting
claimants during the force pooling process before the Virginia Gas
and Oil Board are the owners of the coalbed methane (CBM) and,
accordingly, the owners of the escrowed royalty payments being
held by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (ii) CNX Gas failed to
either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or
paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions.  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
regarding ownership and compensatory and punitive damages for
breach of contract; conversion; negligence (voluntary
undertaking), for force pooling coal owners after the Ratliff
decision declared coal owners did not own the CBM; negligent
breach of duties as an operator; breach of fiduciary duties; and
unjust enrichment.  The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in this
case, which is pending.  CONSOL Energy believes that the case is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Hall" Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy, according to the Company's
May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010,
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court.  The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall.  The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy.  The complaint alleges more
than 1,000 similarly situated lessors.  The lawsuit alleges that
CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i) calculating
line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather than on a well-
by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the royalty on the basis
of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking unreasonable
deductions for post-production costs and costs that were not
arm's-length, and (iv) not paying royalties on oil production.
The complaint also alleges that royalty statements were false and
misleading.  The complaint seeks damages, interest and an
accounting on a well-by-well basis.  The plaintiff amended the
complaint and the Company has filed preliminary objections.
CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.


CONVERGYS CORPORATION: Unit Continues to Negotiate Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Convergys Corporation continues to negotiate a
settlement of a class action lawsuit pending in Texas, according
to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2011.

Several related class action lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in 2001
on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice, Inc.
(Intervoice) during the period from October 12, 1999, through
June 6, 2000 (the Class Period). Plaintiffs filed claims, which
were consolidated into one proceeding under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice (a
subsidiary of the Company since 2008) as well as certain named
former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the
alleged class members.  In the complaint, plaintiffs claim that
Intervoice and the named former officers and directors issued
false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning
the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of a merger
with another company and the alleged future business projections
of Intervoice.  Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged
statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint because it
lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the
pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. On
appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part.  The Fifth
Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further
proceedings in the District Court.  In 2006, the District Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of purchasers of
Intervoice stock during the Class Period.  Intervoice appealed and
in 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's class-
certification order and remanded the case to the District Court
for further consideration.  In October 2009, the District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.  In January
2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for
permission to appeal the denial of class certification.  The case
has been stayed in the District Court pending the Fifth Circuit's
decision on the plaintiffs' appeal.  The Company and the
plaintiffs have signed a term sheet to settle and terminate the
lawsuit.  The parties continue to negotiate a mutually acceptable
settlement and release agreement consistent with the term sheet,
which will be subject to approval by the District Court.  The
Company expects that the settlement will not have a material
adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
condition and believes its reasonable range of loss does not
exceed amounts accrued at March 31, 2011.


DIRECTBUY HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Face Objections
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Varnon, writing for Connecticut Post, reports that DirectBuy
Holdings Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit over sales
practices at its membership-based discount club faced objections
in federal court on May 10 from 39 attorneys general and a
consumer advocacy group.

"It's a first for me," said U.S. District Court Judge Janet C.
Hall during the proceedings on the unprecedented objections to a
settlement offer.  "I never had anybody object."

The hearing was held in federal court in Bridgeport to approve or
deny a class action settlement valued at $19 million in the 2009
case of Christopher Wilson and others brought against DirectBuy.

The settlement, which was granted preliminary approval in December
by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Garfinkel, would provide about
800,000 members of Merrillville, Ind.-based DirectBuy with a free,
two month membership.  Those members, who joined the club on or
after Oct. 11, 2002, paid $3,000 to $7,000 for a multi-year
membership.

The plaintiffs in the case and several others across the nation
allege DirectBuy's advertisements are misleading and fraudulent
because the company promises members will be able to buy
merchandise at manufacturers' prices.  The case focuses in part on
how a manufacturer's price is defined because discounts the
company received from manufacturers weren't passed on to members,
according to court documents.

The lead attorney for DirectBuy, Edward Dunham, partner with New
Haven-based Wiggin and Dana, told the judge on May 10 that members
are given material stating they will pay the price printed in the
DirectBuy catalog.

Judge Hall plans to issue a written decision in a couple of weeks.
The hearing drew 14 lawyers into court and more than a dozen
spectators, including some investment bankers monitoring DirectBuy
as the company's bonds have tumbled over the last couple of
months.  Its bonds were going for 55.25 cents on the dollar and
the company was placed on a credit watch by Standard & Poor's on
April 25.

Judge Hall will decide whether the settlement applies to several
potential class actions or a limited scope of class action
involving racketeering charges. DirectBuy's attorney says the
settlement covers them all, while the attorney for Wilson said
it's a limited settlement.  This was a point several lawyers
objecting to the settlement jumped on as reason to deny the
settlement, because the two sides didn't agree on the scope.

Attorney Jeffrey Noble, who represented Wilson, said the
settlement is a good one, which also brought criticism from
objecting attorneys.

Ellen J. Fried, New York's assistant attorney general in the
consumer frauds and protection bureau, said her office is actively
investigating DirectBuy and that she has seen evidence to support
future claims.

Judge Hall questioned what value the settlement would hold for
people who are no longer members.  "It's like giving me a free
golf membership," she said, drawing a laugh from the courtroom.
"I don't like golf."


DISH NETWORK: Appeal from Antitrust Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their antitrust class
action lawsuit against DISH Network Corporation remains pending,
according to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
lawsuit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The suit
alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009,
the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this case.  The
Company adds that it cannot predict with any degree of certainty
the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.


DISH NETWORK: Pays $60 Mil. Under Retailer Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation paid on April 28, 2011, $60 million in
settlement of retailer class action lawsuits against it, according
to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the Company's retailers.  The plaintiffs
requested that the Courts declare certain provisions of, and
changes to, alleged agreements between the Company and the
retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost
incentives and payments, charge backs and other compensation.  On
September 20, 2010, the Company agreed to a settlement of both
lawsuits that provides, among other things, for mutual releases of
the claims underlying the litigation, payment by the Company of up
to $60 million, and the option for certain class members to elect
to reinstate certain monthly incentive payments, which the parties
agreed have an aggregate maximum value of $23 million.

The Company says it cannot predict with any degree of certainty
how many class members will elect to reinstate these monthly
incentive payments.  As a result, the Company recorded $60 million
as a "Litigation accrual" as of March 31, 2011, and December 31,
2010, on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  On
February 9, 2011, the court granted final approval of the
settlement, and $60 million was paid on April 28, 2011.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Appeal from IPO Suit Dismissal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a final judgment dismissing a consolidated
securities litigation remains pending, according to Extreme
Networks, Inc.'s May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 27,
2011.

Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The cases were consolidated and
the litigation is now captioned as In re Extreme Networks, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The operative
amended complaint names the Company as defendants; six of the
Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including
its former CEO; and several investment banking firms that served
as underwriters of its initial public offering and October 1999
secondary offering.  The complaint alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not
disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain
customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  The parties to the lawsuits have reached a
settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 6, 2009.
Extreme Networks is not required to make any cash payments in the
settlement.  The Court subsequently entered a final judgment of
dismissal.  Certain objectors have appealed the judgment.

If the appeal is successful, the Company says it intends to defend
the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter
at this time.


HORMEL FOODS: Faces Class Action Over "Fat-Free" Labels
-------------------------------------------------------
Linda Casey, writing for Packaging Digest, reports that a class
action suit has been filed in Florida against Hormel Foods Corp.
for allegedly deceiving consumers with fat-free claims on
packaging.

The lawsuit, which was filed on April 18 in U.S. District Court,
alleges that both Hormel and Kraft Foods Inc., misrepresent the
fat content in their deli meat products by placing misleading
"fat-free" labels on product packaging.  Florida resident Brad
Kuenzig filed the suit on behalf of himself and other consumers in
his situation.

According to the court complaint, the lawsuit focuses on
pre-packaged deli meats that contain labels claiming the product
is anywhere from 95 to 98% fat-free, when the products actually
contain more than 10 times the stated amount of fat.

"Hormel has succeeded in misleading consumers," the court
complaint reads.  "Without exception, people who have earned
medical degrees, PhDs, JDs, masters degrees and people with
decades of real-world experience have all interpreted Hormel's
claims to refer to calories from fat."

The court complaint lists several examples of misrepresentation by
Hormel, including the company's claim that its fat-free cooked
deli ham is 96 percent fat free.  According to the court
complaint, the ham contains 60 calories per serving, with 20 of
those from fat.  Therefore, the ham actually contains 33% fat, the
complaint states.

The complaint goes on to say Hormel "breached its duty of good
faith and fair dealing toward Plaintiff by knowingly applying
deceptive and misleading statements to its products labels, and by
failing to include any sort of explanatory phrase."

According to Aaron Mayer, who is representing the Plaintiff,
neither Hormel nor Kraft have formally responded to the complaint
yet.  Kraft was granted an extension to June 13, and Mayer said
Hormel will likely be granted the same extension.

Julie Craven, vice president of corporate communication at Hormel
Foods, said, "The statements on our labels are regulated and
approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture prior to use and
are understandable."

Ms. Craven would not comment further.


ILLINOIS: Transgenders File Class Action Over Birth Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun-Times Media Wire reports that a class action lawsuit was filed
on May 10 claiming that the state of Illinois refuses to change
the gender on birth certificates of transsexual people unless
they've undergone genital surgery.

Lauren Grey, Victor Williams and Nicholas Guarino are transsexual
people who were born in Illinois and underwent medical surgery to
conform their bodies to the gender they identify with rather than
the sex they were assigned at birth, according to a civil lawsuit
filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

The suit claims that the state's Vital Records Act allows the
gender to be changed on a birth certificate if a licensed medical
doctor attests that because of a surgery performed on the person,
the gender should be changed.

Damon T. Arnold M.D., the state registrar of vital records and the
director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, routinely
changed the gender on birth certificates of people who'd undergone
surgery until about 2005 when a practice was adopted that the
gender would not be changed unless the person underwent genital
surgery, according to the suit.

The suit claims that this adopted practice violated the VRA
because nothing in the act requires genital surgery before the
gender can be changed on the birth certificate.

The suit claims that what is considered necessary medical and
psychological treatment for transsexuals varies by individual and
does not always include genital surgery, which is rarely completed
for transsexual men.

Ms. Grey and Mr. Williams have changed their genders on all of
their government-issued identifications except their birth
certificates, the suit said.  Because Mr. Guarino can't change the
gender on his birth certificate, he can't change his gender on his
driver's license or other identification in Texas, where he lives.

Ms. Grey claims that forcing her to show an identification
document that identifies her as male puts her at a significant
risk for embarrassment and possible violence, according to the
suit.  It is also psychologically and emotionally harmful for
Ms. Grey, the suit said.

The class action suit seeks a permanent injunction ordering the
state to grant new birth certificates with a change of gender to
Ms. Grey, Mr. Williams, Mr. Guarino and any others affected.  The
suit also seeks court courts, attorney's fees and other relief.

A spokesperson for the Illinois Dept. of Public Health was not
immediately available for comment.


ILLINOIS: Deadline for Written Comments on Class Action Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that today, May 13, is the deadline
for written comments on a proposed settlement in a class action
lawsuit affecting adults with developmental disabilities.

A hearing is scheduled June 15 in Chicago.  A federal judge has
given preliminary approval of the settlement and will hear
comments during the hearing.

The lawsuit, filed in 2005, claimed Illinois violated the rights
of disabled people living in 250 large institutions.

The agreement would give more housing choices to 6,000 adults who
receive state aid and live in privately operated care facilities.
Illinois' Medicaid program also would be required to offer
services to an additional 3,000 adults living at home with aging
parents or other family members.

Comments may be sent to U.S. District Judge James Holderman in
Chicago.


MASSACHUSETTS: Sued for Unlawfully Revoking Driver's Licenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the
Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles "summarily" revokes
driver's licenses without notice "simply because and for no other
reason" than the licenseholder is "similar in appearance" to some
other licenseholder.

A copy of the Complaint in Gass v. Kapreilian, et al., Case No.
11-1742 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/10/DriverLic.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William F. Spallina, Esq.
          304 Newbury St., No. 201
          Boston, MA 02115


MCMILLIN: Class Action Over Rock Church Proceeds Today
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit against McMillin properties proceeds
today, May 13, 2011, before Judge Richard A. Strauss.  Judge
Strauss will determine whether McMillin had a duty to disclose the
potential relocation of the Rock Church, a "mega church," to
purchasers in the Point Loma residential community of Liberty
Station.

The case entitled Mann v McMillin was certified as a class action
by Judge Strauss on December 3, 2010.

McMillin entered into negotiations with the mega church in early
2002 to sell it a 250,000 square foot structure, described by
Pastor Miles McPherson as being akin to the mythical size of
Noah's ark.  The Rock Church planned on utilizing the massive
structure to seat 3,500 people and on holding 5 services each
Sunday, thus, subjecting the small residential community of 349
homes to up to 17,500 parishioners each week, along with thousands
of cars.

Kimberly Elliott, a McMillin Vice President, wrote in 2002 to
pastor Miles McPherson that because the relocation of the Rock
Church was "so politically sensitive" it would be better for "you
and us" not to disclose the relocation to the public.

The Church opened its doors in Liberty Station in August 2007.  A
contemporaneous letter exchanged between lawyers for the Rock
Church and McMillin reveals that McMillin and the church have
"agreed to disagree" about whether McMillin promised the Rock
Church adequate parking at Liberty Station.

McMillin advertised the residential neighborhood carved out of the
remains of the Naval Training Center as being "for people, not
cars" while at the same time clandestinely working with the Rock
Church to relocate to Liberty Station.

An expert for the plaintiffs has opined in a written declaration
filed with the court that McMillin had a duty to make full
disclosure because the relocation of the Rock Church to Liberty
Station could have had, and plaintiffs now claim, has had, a
material affect on the desirability and value of their homes.
McMillin did not file an opposing expert declaration.

On a side note, critics view the City of San Diego's "sale" of NTC
to Corky McMillin Properties as one of the greatest public land
give-aways to private developers in modern San Diego history.


NISOURCE INC: To Make Additional Payments Under Settlement Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc., disclosed in its May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011, that it will be required to make
additional payments, pursuant to the settlement of the class
action lawsuit Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.,
Roane County, WV Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, filed a lawsuit
in early 2003 in the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County,
West Virginia against CNR alleging that CNR underpaid royalties on
gas produced on their land by improperly deducting post-production
costs and not paying a fair value for the gas. Plaintiffs also
claimed that Defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of
post-production charges.  In December 2004, the Trial Court
granted Plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource and Columbia Energy
Group as Defendants.  The Trial Court later certified the case as
a class action that includes any person who, after July 31, 1990,
received or is due royalties from CNR (and its predecessors or
successors) on lands lying within the boundary of the state of
West Virginia.  Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource
remained obligated to manage this litigation and was responsible
for the majority of any damages awarded to Plaintiffs.  On January
27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict against all
Defendants in the amount of $404.3 million inclusive of both
compensatory and punitive damages; Defendants subsequently filed
their Petition for Appeal, which was later amended, with the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which refused the petition on
May 22, 2008.  On
August 22, 2008, Defendants filed Petitions to the United States
Supreme Court for writ of certiorari.  Given the Appeals Court's
earlier refusal of the appeal, NiSource adjusted its reserve in
the second quarter of 2008 to reflect the portion of the Trial
Court judgment for which NiSource would be responsible, inclusive
of interest.  This amount was included in "Legal and environmental
reserves," on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31,
2008.  On October 24, 2008, the Trial Court preliminarily approved
a Settlement Agreement with a total settlement amount of $380
million.  The settlement received final approval by the Trial
Court on November 22, 2008.  NiSource's share of the settlement
liability is up to $338.8 million. NiSource complied with its
obligations under the Settlement Agreement to fund $85.5 million
in the qualified settlement fund by January 13, 2009.
Additionally, NiSource provided a letter of credit on January 13,
2009, in the amount of $254 million and thereby complied with its
obligation to secure the unpaid portion of the settlement.  The
letter of credit was terminated on December 29, 2010.  The Trial
Court entered its Order discharging the judgment on January 20,
2009, and is supervising the administration of the settlement
proceeds.  As of March 31, 2011, NiSource has contributed a total
of $337.5 million into the qualified settlement fund, $330.5
million of which was contributed prior to December 31, 2010.  As
of March 31, 2011, $1.3 million of the maximum settlement
liability has not been paid.  NiSource will be required to make
additional payments, pursuant to the settlement, upon notice from
the Class Administrator, however, NiSource does not expect these
additional payments to be material.


NISOURCE INC: Court Holds Rulings in Thacker & Poplar Creek Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc., disclosed in its May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011, that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in February 2011 rulings
related to two class action lawsuits involving the Company and a
subsidiary.

On February 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Thacker case -- John
Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., U.S. District
Court, E.D. Kentucky -- a purported class action alleging that
Chesapeake has failed to pay royalty owners the correct amounts
pursuant to the provisions of their oil and gas leases covering
real property located within the state of Kentucky.  Columbia
Energy Group has assumed the defense of Chesapeake in this matter
pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement dated
July 3, 2003, among Columbia, NiSource, and Triana Energy Holding,
Inc., Chesapeake's predecessor in interest.  Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint on March 19, 2007, which, among other things,
added NiSource and Columbia as Defendants.  On March 31, 2008, the
Court denied a Motion by Defendants to Dismiss and on June 3,
2008, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all
persons entitled to payment of royalty by Chesapeake under leases
operated by Chesapeake at any point after February 5, 1992, on
real property in Kentucky.

In June 2009, the parties to the Thacker litigation presented a
Settlement Agreement to the Court for preliminary approval, which
provides for a settlement amount of $28.8 million.  NiSource has
fully reserved for the entire settlement amount.  The court
granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval and held a fairness
hearing on November 10, 2009.  On March 3, 2010 the Court granted
final approval of the settlement and on March 31, 2010, Poplar
Creek filed a notice of appeal of that approval with the Sixth
Circuit.  On February 17, 2011, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
lower court's approval of the settlement.

On October 9, 2008, Chesapeake tendered the Poplar Creek case --
Poplar Creek Development Company v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.,
U.S. District Court, E.D. Kentucky -- to Columbia and Columbia
conditionally assumed the defense of this matter pursuant to the
provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement. Poplar Creek also
purports to be a class action covering royalty owners in the state
of Kentucky and alleges that Chesapeake has improperly deducted
costs from the royalty payments; thus, there is some overlap of
parties and issues between the Poplar Creek and Thacker cases.
Chesapeake filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in
December 2008, which was granted on July 2, 2009. Plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Oral argument was held on December 9, 2010, for both the Thacker
and Poplar Creek cases.  On February 17, 2011, the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the lower court's decision.


OZ MINERALS: Settles Two Class Actions for $55.1 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that OZ Minerals Ltd. has
agreed to pay $55.1 million, plus costs, to settle two class
actions related to its alleged failure to disclose material
information about its financial position.

Under the class actions, it was alleged investors bought shares in
OZ Minerals in 2008 when the company had understated its debt by
about $300 million and failed to disclose the full extent of its
refinancing difficulties.

Law firm Slater & Gordon, which conducted one of the class actions
funded by Litigation Lending Services, on May 10 said a deed of
settlement had been executed with OZ Minerals.

The other class action, based on the same allegations and
conducted by law firm Maurice Blackburn with funding from IMF
(Australia) Ltd, was settled for $35.9 million, plus costs.

OZ Minerals said the settlement payments would "impact the
company's net profit for 2011 by the full amount".

The settlements are subject to approval by the Federal Court of
Australia that Slater & Gordon hopes will occur within the next
eight weeks.

Slater & Gordon said participants in its class action,
predominantly "mum and dad retail investors", would share in
$19.2 million.

"Approximately 80% of class members who suffered a loss are
expected to receive between $100 and $5,000, depending on when and
the number of shares they purchased," Slater & Gordon said in a
statement.

OZ Minerals said costs amounted to $4.9 million and it would make
the settlements from its current cash reserves.

The miner's chairman, Neil Hamilton, said the settlements were "in
no way an admission of any liability in respect of either of these
cases".

He said the settlement was "purely a commercial decision".

Ken Fowlie, Slater & Gordon's practice group leader for Sydney
commercial and project litigation, said the settlement was a
perfect example of how a class action could resolve major legal
battles quickly and cheaply for small investors with limited
resources.

Michelle Silvers, the firm's managing director of litigation
lending services, said the win would not have been possible
without the backing of a litigation funder.

"It is this sort of class action that is increasingly holding big
public companies across Australia accountable to shareholders,"
Ms. Silvers said.

OZ Minerals shares closed the day up four cents, or 2.94%, at
$1.40.


SONUS NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss IPO Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc., is awaiting a ruling from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on a motion to dismiss an
appeal from the settlement of a class action lawsuit related to
the Company's initial public offering, according to the Company's
May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In November 2001, a purchaser of the Company's common stock filed
a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its officers and
the lead underwriters alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and seeking unspecified monetary damages.  The purchaser
seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between the date of the IPO on May 24, 2000, and
December 6, 2000.  The amended complaint, filed in April 2002,
alleges that the Company's registration statement contained false
or misleading information or omitted to state material facts
concerning the alleged receipt of undisclosed compensation by the
underwriters and the existence of undisclosed arrangements between
the underwriters and certain purchasers to make additional
purchases in the after market.  The claims against the Company are
asserted under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and against the individual defendants under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar
class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly-traded
companies and their IPO underwriters which, along with the actions
against the Company, have been transferred to a single federal
judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the other issuers
named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims
against many of the individual defendants, including the Company's
officers named in the complaint.  On February 19, 2003, the
District Court granted a portion of the motion to dismiss by
dismissing the Section 10(b) claims against certain defendants
including the Company, but denied the remainder of the motion as
to the defendants.

In October 2004, the District Court certified the class in a case
against certain defendants.  On August 31, 2005, the District
Court approved the terms of the proposed settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit reversed the District Court's October 2004 order
certifying a class.  On August 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement, approval of
the plan of distribution of the settlement fund and certification
of the settlement classes.  A settlement fairness hearing was held
on September 10, 2009.  On October 5, 2009, the District Court
issued an opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of a new
settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes.  An
Order and Final Judgment was entered on January 14, 2010.

On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had filed a notice of
appeal filed a stipulation with the Second Circuit withdrawing
their appeals with prejudice, and one of the remaining objectors
filed a brief in support of his appeal.  On December 8, 2010,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice the appeal filed by one
of the two appellants based on alleged violations of the Second
Circuit's rules, including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of
service, and failure to include citations to the record.  The
motion was fully briefed as of December 30, 2010, but the Second
Circuit has not yet ruled on the motion.  The filing of
plaintiffs' motion tolled the deadline for appellees to file
answering briefs on both appeals.  If the District Court's order
is upheld on appeal, the Company would have no material liability
in connection with this litigation, and this litigation would be
resolved.


STRAYER EDUCATION: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Kinnett" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Strayer Education, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss a putative securities class action captioned Kinnett v.
Strayer Education, Inc., et al., according to the Company's May 2,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 15, 2010, a putative securities class action styled
Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al., was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  On April 19, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  On January 3, 2011, a
shareholder derivative complaint styled Vakharloskaya v. Silberman
et al., was filed in Florida state court in Hillsborough County,
Florida.  On March 29, 2011, the plaintiff and Strayer jointly
submitted to the Florida state court a stipulation recognizing
that Fairfax, Virginia is a more appropriate forum for this
litigation.  On April 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court of Fairfax County.

The Company believes these lawsuits to be without merit and will
contest them vigorously.  While the outcome of any legal
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company does
not presently expect that this matter will have a material effect
on its financial condition or results of operations.


TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: Appeals From Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the settlement of a class action lawsuit related to
Telecommunication Systems, Inc.'s initial public offering remain
pending, according to the Company's May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In November 2001, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, certain of its current officers and a
director, and several investment banks that were the underwriters
of its initial public offering: Highstein v. TeleCommunication
Systems, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 01-CV-9500.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.  The lawsuit
purports to be a class action suit filed on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the period August 8,
2000, through December 6, 2000.  The plaintiffs allege that the
Underwriters agreed to allocate the Company's Class A Common Stock
offered for sale in its initial public offering to certain
purchasers in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those purchasers to make additional purchases of
its Class A Common Stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.  The plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, and that the
underwriters violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The claims against the Company of
violation of Rule 10b-5 have been dismissed with the plaintiffs
having the right to re-plead.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
approved a settlement of this and approximately 300 similar cases.
On January 14, 2010, an Order and Final Judgment was entered.
Various notices of appeal of the Court's October 5, 2009, order
were subsequently filed.  On October 7, 2010, all but two parties
who had filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the
Court withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two
remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals.  The
Company intends to continue to defend the lawsuit until the matter
is resolved.  The Company has purchased a Directors and Officers
insurance policy which it believes should cover any potential
liability that may result from these laddering class action
claims, but can provide no assurance that any or all of the costs
of the litigation will ultimately be covered by the insurance.  No
reserve has been recorded for this matter.


TREX CO: Continues to Defend Product Defects Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuits alleging certain defects in the
Company's products, according to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms on behalf of Eric Ross
and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs.  These
plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate
remedies for defective products.  On February 13, 2009, the
Company removed this case to the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.  On January 21, 2009, a purported
class action case was commenced against the Company in the United
States District Court, Western District of Washington by the law
firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of Mark Okano
and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain
product defects in the Company's products, and that the Company
has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products.
This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the
California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's
case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on
March 15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.  On
April 14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm
dismissed their appeal, effectively making the settlement final.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint.  In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated the two pending
actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens
Berman Firm as lead counsel in this case.  The Company believes
that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend
this lawsuit.

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by the lead law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP
on behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs.
These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Company believes that these claims are without merit, and will
vigorously defend this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


USI SERVICES: Overtime Suit to Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by group of employees who claim the
company that provides janitorial services at JC Penny stores in
New York and New Jersey hasn't paid them overtime is proceeding in
Long Island federal court.

U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert has preliminarily certified the
lawsuit, filed in 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York in Central Islip, against USI Services Group,
Ultimate Services Inc. and an executive of the companies, Fred
Goldring, as a class action.

The employees, all of whom live and work on Long Island, alleged
that the cleaning company "regularly required" them to work more
than 40 hours a week, but did not pay them overtime, or for all
the hours they worked, according to the lawsuit, Brieno, et al. v.
USI Services Group, Inc., et al. (Index No. 09 Civ. 4252).

The suit, filed by the Carle Place law firm, Leeds Morelli & Brown
PC, alleges the cleaning firm violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The employees contend in court papers that the cleaning-services
firm frequently failed to credit or pay them for all their hours
between 2003 and 2008 at 157 locations where USI provided cleaning
services.  More than 100 employees are in the class, according to
court papers.

USI and Ultimate Services are based in Springfield, NJ.

The total amount of unpaid wages is to be determined by the court,
according to the lawsuit, which also seeks damages equal to the
unpaid wages, plus interest and attorneys fees and costs.


VESTAS WIND: Accused in Colorado Suit of Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Casey, writing for Greeley Tribune, reports that Vestas Wind
Systems is being sued by an employees retirement group in Michigan
that alleges the turbine maker engaged in false and misleading
financial information that caused investor losses.

The class-action suit, which seeks unspecified damages, was filed
March 18 in U.S. District Court in Denver.

The suit claims Denmark-based Vestas and four of its chief
officers "disseminated materially false and misleading statements
during the class period in the company's financial reports, press
releases and during earnings and analyst conference calls."

Vestas spokesman Peter Kruse issued a statement saying the suit is
without merit and will be fought.

"The company has reviewed the complaint with its legal and other
advisors and believes that the complaint is without merit," the
statement said.  "The company and the individual defendants intend
to defend themselves vigorously."

Vestas is a major employer in Weld County and Colorado.  The
company employs about 750 workers at its Windsor plant; about 750
at the nacelles-and-hubs plant in Brighton; and about 400 at a
tower plant in Pueblo.

The suit is brought by the City of Sterling Heights (Mich.)
General Employees' Retirement System. Officers named as defendants
are Bent Erik Carlsen, chairman of the board; Ditlev Engel,
president and CEO; Henrik Norremark, executive vice president and
CFO; and Martha Wyrsch, president of Vestas Americas.

During the class period of Oct. 27, 2009 to Oct. 25, 2010, the
suit says the defendants "engaged in a scheme to deceive the
market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the
price of Vestas securities."

The result was declines in share prices of 22.5% and 10% on
Aug. 18, 2010, and Oct. 26, 2010, respectively, the suit says.

The suit alleges Vestas failed to adopt the International
Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee's Interpretation 15,
a new accounting standard effective Jan. 1, 2010.  The standard
required the company to account for all its wind turbine contracts
on a completed contract basis.  Vestas didn't comply until Nov.
22, and when the company admitted on Oct. 26, 2010 that it had
failed to adopt IFRIC 15, its shares dropped another 10%.

The suit also alleges that Engel and Norremark were motivated to
engage in misleading information to maximize their 2009 and 2010
compensation.

The suit goes on to allege, "after the defendants' fraud was
revealed and absorbed by the market, investors sold their Vestas
securities in mass, reducing the price of the company's securities
by 57 percent from their class period high."


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Bushfire to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Iaria, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports
that a bid by electricity supplier SP Ausnet and Victoria Police
to stop a class action by hundreds of Black Saturday bushfire
victims from going to trial has failed.

SP Ausnet and the state -- defendants in a class action by
hundreds of Black Saturday victims -- tried to have the
proceedings dismissed.

SP Ausnet cited an abuse of process by the solicitors who issued
the initial claim.

But Victorian Supreme Court Justice Jack Forrest on May 10 ruled
the proceeding should stand, as the abuse was "not fatal" to the
case going ahead.

He also added that potentially many thousands of claimants would
be affected by an order dismissing the claim.

Solicitors Oldham Naidoo had issued proceedings for damages
against power company SP Ausnet over Victoria's February 2009,
bushfires at Kilmore East and Beechworth.

The company is being sued for allegedly failing to maintain and
monitor powerlines that sparked the blazes.

The firm named Leo Keane the representative plaintiff in the
action, despite not gaining his permission.

Justice Forrest found the solicitors' conduct was a "patent and
egregious abuse of process".

"The firm's handling of the claim should be referred to the Legal
Services Commissioner," he said in his ruling.

"However, the consequences of that abuse of process should not
result in the dismissal of the proceeding."

In March this year, law firm Maurice Blackburn became aware of
Oldham Naidoo's unauthorized actions and brought its conduct to
the court's attention.  It is now leading the class action and
played no part in the abuse of process.

Carol Matthews has replaced Mr. Keane as the lead plaintiff.

Justice Forrest said the court's aim was to ensure that the abuse
of process did not cause injustice to the parties.

"Potentially, many thousands of claimants would be affected by an
order dismissing the claim," he said.

"The prejudice is real both in terms of delay and in the financial
sense."

The Black Saturday bushfires killed 173 people when they
devastated Victoria on February 7, 2009.

Victoria Police also applied to have the proceedings dismissed
without going to trial.

But Justice Forrest found there was merit in the claim Victoria
Police officers breached their duties by failing to give adequate
warning to people threatened by fire and ruled the case should go
to trial.


WASHINGTON, DC: Accused of Discovery Violation in Preschool Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Zoe
Tillman, in a scathing opinion issued on May 10, U.S. District
Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth accused the city and its
attorneys of "repeated, flagrant, and unrepentant failures to
comply with Court orders" in their handling of discovery in a six-
year class action suit.

The case -- brought over the city's alleged failure to make
preschool special education programs accessible -- was scheduled
for trial on April 6.  When the parties arrived, however,
plaintiffs' counsel informed Judge Lamberth that the city's
attorneys were continuing to "dump" thousands of e-mails and
planned to continue releasing them even after the trial was over.

Comparing the city's behavior to "a standup comic who delivers the
punch-lines of his jokes first" or "a plane with landing gear that
deploys just after touchdown," Judge Lamberth wrote that "a
discovery violation of this exotic magnitude is literally unheard
of in this Court."

At the time, Judge Lamberth ordered the city to turn over all e-
mails within a week of the trial's conclusion on April 7; the city
had waived its right to review the e-mails for privilege, he
ruled.  The city asked him to reconsider, a request he denied in
Monday's decision.

Ariel Waldman, senior counsel to the attorney general, declined to
comment, citing the pending litigation.

The lead counsel for the class, Bruce Terris of Washington's
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, said he thought Lamberth's opinion was
an "accurate" depiction of what's been going on in the case.
Terris said he saw the opinion as a warning to attorneys and
clients who might fail to comply with discovery orders in the
future.

"If [attorneys] knew that decisions like this were likely or even
possible, they would lean on their clients something awful to make
sure their clients complied with discovery rules," he said.

Judge Lamberth has yet to rule on the merits of the case since
there are several post-trial motions still pending, including the
city's motion to decertify the class and for relief from
Judge Lamberth's previous ruling granting the class partial
summary judgment.

The case stems from allegations that city school officials failed
to identify and provide special education programs to preschool
students in need for years, in violation of the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) and other federal and local
statutes, according to the complaint (PDF).

In October 2010, Judge Lamberth granted the class summary judgment
for the time period ending in 2007, finding that city school
officials had violated the IDEA and Rehabilitation Act in failing
to identify, reach out to, and efficiently handle referrals from
families in need of preschool special education.

A schedule was set for filing motions on relief, and also for
proceeding to trial on the charges for the time period from 2007
through the present, Mr. Terris said.

Judge Lamberth noted in his opinion on May 9 that he first
"refereed" a discovery dispute in the case in 2008, when he
criticized the city for failing to respond to requests for
document production during the three years after the class first
filed suit in 2005.

The problems continued and came to a head on April 6, according to
Judge Lamberth, when plaintiffs' counsel told the court that the
city's attorneys had indicated that they planned to continue
submitting e-mails on a "rolling" basis throughout the trial.

When Judge Lamberth pressed the city's attorneys for an
explanation, he wrote, they responded that new searches had
continued to yield thousands of e-mails, and that the city was too
understaffed to review all of them before the case went to trial.

The bench trial went forward and concluded the next day.  At that
time, Judge Lamberth ordered the city to produce all of the e-
mails the plaintiffs had requested -- the city's attorneys had
waived their right to a privilege review at that point, he wrote
-- within a week.

The city asked Judge Lamberth to reconsider, writing in its motion
that "the circumstances here simply do not meet the standard for
imposing such a severe sanction."  The city's attorneys also
argued that they had acted in good faith, that allowing documents
to come in after trial wouldn't prejudice the other side and that
the plaintiffs' counsel had also engaged in "dilatory discovery."

In his opinion, Judge Lamberth wrote that he was keeping the
sanction in place because "the Court felt that strong specific
deterrence was particularly necessary in light of the District's
failure to get the message the first time."

As for the city's argument that it had tried in good faith to
comply with discovery orders? Too little, too late, Judge Lamberth
wrote.

"The Rules . . .  require adherence to a very precise framework
for navigating the discovery process," he wrote.  "A good-faith
effort to produce documents in the absence of adherence to Court
orders and the Federal Rules is useless."


WASHINGTON, D.C.: Sued for Hiring Driver with Tuberculosis
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority employed a
tubercular bus driver who "actively displayed signs of the
disease," on its MetroAccess line, for disabled customers.

A copy of the Complaint in Andrews v. Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, et al., Case No. 0003004-11 (D.C. Super. Ct.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/10/TB.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Wasser, Esq.
          110 North Washington Street, Suite 404
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (301) 294-7400


WESTERN DIGITAL: Accounting Hearing in "Durrani" Set for July 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation is expecting confirmation from the
Orange County (California) Superior Court at a hearing scheduled
for July 11, 2011, that it has fully paid the settlement amount
under its settlement of the putative class action filed by Ghazala
H. Durrani, according to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 1, 2011.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee
of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the
Alameda County (California) Superior Court.  The complaint alleged
that certain of the Company's engineers had been misclassified as
exempt employees under California state law and were, therefore,
due unspecified amounts for unpaid hourly overtime wages and other
amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest
periods.  By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was
transferred to the Orange County (California) Superior Court.  On
June 16, 2009, the Company was dismissed from the case without
prejudice by stipulation, leaving WDTI as the sole remaining
defendant.  On June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its answer to the
complaint, denying the substantive allegations thereof and raising
several affirmative defenses.  The parties participated in a
mediation of the case on June 3, 2010, which led to a proposed
settlement of the case.  The proposed settlement, which was
ultimately approved by the court, resolved the case on a class-
wide basis for an immaterial amount that was accrued by the
Company in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010.  The court granted
final approval of the settlement and entered judgment on
February 7, 2011.  At the Final Accounting Hearing scheduled for
July 11, 2011, the court is expected to confirm that the
settlement amount was fully paid in accordance with the settlement
agreement.  After that hearing, the lawsuit will be formally
concluded and dismissed.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Continues to Defend "Sadaat" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation continues to defend itself from a
putative class action lawsuit filed in California by its former
employee, Tarriq Sadaat, according to the Company's May 2, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 1, 2011.

On February 26, 2010, and as thereafter amended on August 23,
2010, and December 22, 2010, plaintiff Tarriq Sadaat, a former
employee of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Orange County (California) Superior Court against the
Company; WDTI; Kelly Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
certain other unnamed individuals.  The named plaintiff seeks to
represent certain hourly employees who were assigned to work at
certain of the Company's facilities by Kelly Services, a temporary
staffing agency.  In this regard, the complaint alleges that the
hourly employees are due unspecified sums for unpaid overtime
wages and other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed
meal and rest periods.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages
including lost wages, penalties under the California Labor Code
and other statutes, compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company's response to the complaint was filed and served in
January 2011.

The Company denies the allegations and intends to defend itself
vigorously.


XEROX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation continues to defend itself from a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according
to the Company's May 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  Defendants are the Company, Barry Romeril, Paul
Allaire and G. Richard Thoman.  The consolidated action is a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Xerox
Corporation common stock during the period October 22, 1998,
through October 7, 1999, inclusive and who suffered a loss as a
result of misrepresentations or omissions by Defendants as alleged
by Plaintiffs.  The Class alleges that in violation of Section
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is
liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the Class Period by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing
material facts relating to the defendants' alleged failure to
disclose the material negative impact that the April 1998
restructuring had on the Company's operations and revenues.  The
complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme: (i) deceived
the investing public regarding the economic capabilities, sales
proficiencies, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of the
Company's common stock; (ii) allowed several corporate insiders,
such as the named individual defendants, to sell shares of
privately held common stock of the Company while in possession of
materially adverse, non-public information; and (iii) caused the
individual plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
to purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against
all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained
as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest
thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
the action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint.  The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling.  In
February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No.
164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius and Georgia Stanley to appoint
them as additional lead plaintiffs.  In July 2007, the Court
denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification, without
prejudice to renewal after the Court holds a pre-filing conference
to identify factual disputes the Court will be required to resolve
in ruling on the motion.  After that conference and Agius'
withdrawal as lead plaintiff and proposed class representative, in
February 2008, plaintiffs filed a second renewed motion for class
certification.  In April 2008, defendants filed their response and
motion to disqualify Milberg LLP as a lead counsel.  On
September 30, 2008, the Court entered an order certifying the
class and denying the appointment of Milberg LLP as class counsel.
Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied defendants'
motion to disqualify Milberg LLP.  On November 6, 2008, the
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.  Briefing with
respect to the motion is complete.  The Court has not yet rendered
a decision.  The parties also filed motions to exclude the
testimony of certain expert witnesses.  On April 22, 2009, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude the testimony of two
of defendants' expert witnesses.  On September 30, 2010, the Court
denied plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of another of
defendants' expert witnesses.  The Court also granted defendants'
motion to exclude the testimony of one of plaintiffs' expert
witnesses, and granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' two remaining
expert witnesses.

The individual defendants and the Company deny any wrongdoing and
are vigorously defending the action.  In the course of litigation,
the Company periodically engage in discussions with plaintiffs'
counsel for possible resolution of this matter.  Should
developments cause a change in the Company's determination as to
an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or a
settlement for a significant amount, there could be a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows
and financial position in the period in which such change in
determination, judgment or settlement occurs.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Posts $1.8MM March 31 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at March 31, 2011, had accrued
about US$1.8 million for asbestos liability and related expenses,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at
various locations.  The Company has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

Through March 31, 2011, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 5,000
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,400 claims were pending
and 3,600 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.

Through March 31, 2011, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an integrated EPC provider
and major process technology licensor.  The Company provides
conceptual design, technology, engineering, procurement,
fabrication, construction and commissioning services to customers
in the energy and natural resource industries.  The Company is
headquartered The Hague, The Netherlands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Posts $51MM Claims Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved about US$51 million at March 31, 2011 and US$53
million at Dec. 31, 2010 in total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy Company.

As of March 31, 2011, about US$15 million of this amount related
to 182 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining
US$36 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050
based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on
an annual basis.

Exelon Corporation distributes electricity to 5.4 million
customers in northern Illinois (including Chicago) and
southeastern Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia) through
subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and PECO Energy.  The
Company is headquartered in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Claims v. Dana Drop to 29T at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 29,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at March 31, 2011 versus 30,000
at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2011.

In addition, about 10,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled
and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or
without payment.

The Company has accrued US$99 million for indemnity and defense
costs for settled, pending and future claims at March 31, 2011,
compared with US$101 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline products (axles,
driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and
thermal management products) and genuine service parts for light
and heavy vehicle manufacturers.  The Company is headquartered in
Maumee, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has $51MM March 31 Insurance Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had recorded US$51 million at March 31,
2011 as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the
pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims,
compared with US$52 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2010.

Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline products (axles,
driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and
thermal management products) and genuine service parts for light
and heavy vehicle manufacturers.  The Company is headquartered in
Maumee, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Disputing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the
past.

The Company's practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these
claims, and it has been successful in resolving a majority of
claims with little or no payment.

Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been
covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other
companies, and the Company said it believes that a substantial
majority of existing claims should continue to be covered by
insurance or indemnities.

Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service
provider of comprehensive flow control systems.  The Company
develops and manufactures precision-engineered flow control
equipment integral to the movement, control and protection of the
flow of materials in its customers' critical processes.  The
Company is headquartered in Irving, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Posts $1.091-Bil. Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's asbestos claims reserves were
US$1.091 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2011,
compared with US$1.1 billion during the 12 months ended Dec. 31,
2010.

About 61% and 60% of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves as of March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, respectively,
were for incurred but not reported estimated losses.

The Allstate Corporation's Allstate Protection segment sells auto,
homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products in
Canada and the United States.  Allstate Financial provides life
insurance through subsidiaries Allstate Life, American Heritage
Life, and Lincoln Benefit Life.  The Company is based in
Northbrook, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Named in Multi-Party Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc. continues to be named as a defendant in
numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third
parties, and integrated into or sold with a very limited number of
the Company's products.

Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of products
incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies
serving markets worldwide.  The Company was incorporated in 1905
and is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Party to Cases in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is one of several unrelated
defendants in lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in its case,
allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  The Company expects to receive complete defense
and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under
the terms of its 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides contract drilling
services to the energy industry around the globe and is a leader
in offshore drilling.  Its current fleet of 46 offshore drilling
rigs consists of 32 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-ups and one
drillship.  The Company is headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Cases v. TriMas Rise to 1,095 at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of March 31, 2011, was a party to about
1,095 pending cases involving an aggregate of about 8,194
claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials.

The asbestos formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company was a party to about 1,050
pending cases involving an aggregate of about 8,200 claimants
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.  (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2011)

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
140 claims filed, 143 claims dismissed and three claims settled.
Average settlement amount per claim was US$36,667 and total
defense costs were US$610,000.

During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded
892 claims filed, 456 claims dismissed and 52 claims settled.
Average settlement amount per claim was US$7,029 and total defense
costs were US$2,870,000.

Of the 8,194 claims pending at March 31, 2011, about 47 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum), about 31 of the 47 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages), 13 sought between
US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which includes
compensatory and punitive damages) and three sought over US$10
million (which includes compensatory and punitive damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, about 32 of the
47 claims sought between US$50,000 and US$700,000, about
12 sought between US$700,000 and US$5 million and three sought
over US$5 million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, about 31 of the 47 claims
sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million, about 13 sought
between US$2.5 million and US$5 million and three sought over
US$5 million.

TriMas Corporation is a global manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets.  The
Company is principally engaged in six reportable segments with
diverse products and market channels: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace
& Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent
North America.  The Company is headquartered in Bloomfield Hills,
Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Still Has 4,400 Actions at March 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 4,400 lawsuits as of March 25, 2011 pending
against Tyco International Ltd. and its subsidiaries or entities
for which the Company has assumed responsibility.

There were about 4,400 asbestos lawsuits pending against the
Company and its subsidiaries or entities, for which the Company
has assumed responsibility as of Dec. 24, 2010.  (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 11, 2011)

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with numerous
other companies are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.  These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or
distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos
or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third-parties.

Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company
has determined that there were about 5,300 claims outstanding as
of March 25, 2011.

As of March 25, 2011, the Company's estimated net liability of
US$91 million was recorded within its Consolidated Balance Sheet
as a liability for pending and future claims and related defense
costs of US$302 million, and separately as an asset for insurance
recoveries of US$211 million.

Similarly, as of Sept. 24, 2010, the Company's estimated net
liability of US$106 million was recorded within the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future
claims and related defense costs of US$309 million, and separately
as an asset for insurance recoveries of US$203 million.

Tyco International Ltd. comprises five divisions devoted to
security, fire protection, safety, valves, and tubing.  The
Company's products and services cater to customers in more than
60 countries.  The Company is headquartered in Schaffhausen,
Switzerland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow's Non-Current March 31 Liability at $655MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$655 million as of March 31, 2011, compared
with US$663 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company
press release dated April 28, 2011.

Non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$217
million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$220 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Dow Chemical Company's  portfolio of specialty chemical,
advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics businesses deliver
technology-based products and solutions to customers in about 160
countries and in high growth sectors such as electronics, water,
energy, coatings and agriculture.  The Company is headquartered in
Midland, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 16,000 at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had about 16,000 pending asbestos product
liability claims as of March 31, 2011 and 17,000 pending asbestos
product liability claims as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.

Of the 16,000 outstanding claims at March 31, 2011, about half
were pending in jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort
and judicial reform activities subsequent to the filing of these
claims.

In 2011, of about 600 claims resolved, about 80 (13.3%) resulted
in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.  In the full year of 2010, of about 7,700 claims
resolved, only 245 (3.2%) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

BorgWarner Inc. makes engine and drivetrain products for the
world's major automotive manufacturers.  Products include
turbochargers, air pumps, timing chain systems, four-wheel-drive
and all-wheel-drive transfer cases (primarily for light trucks and
SUVs), and transmission components.  The Company is headquartered
in Auburn Hills, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Subject to Continental Case in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers are still involved in an asbestos-related
declaratory judgment action, filed in January 2004 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and
related companies (CNA).

The court has issued a number of interim rulings and discovery is
continuing.  CNA and the Company have entered into a settlement
agreement resolving their coverage disputes, under which CNA will
pay amounts over the next four years to the Company.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued US$163.4 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received US$80.5 million in cash and notes from insurers
including CNA.

The net balance of US$82.9 million is expected to be fully
recovered, of which about US$27.6 million is expected to be
recovered within one year.  Timing of recovery is dependent on
final resolution of the declaratory judgment action.

At Dec. 31, 2010, insurers owed US$120.6 million in association
with these claims.

BorgWarner Inc. makes engine and drivetrain products for the
world's major automotive manufacturers.  Products include
turbochargers, air pumps, timing chain systems, four-wheel-drive
and all-wheel-drive transfer cases (primarily for light trucks and
SUVs), and transmission components.  The Company is headquartered
in Auburn Hills, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Accrues $54MM March 31 Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has estimated a liability of US$54.0 million for
asbestos claims asserted, but not yet resolved and their related
defense costs at March 31, 2011.

The Company also has a related asset of US$54 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers.  Insurance carrier
reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the Company's
experience, its insurance contracts and decisions received to date
in a declaratory judgment action.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the comparable value of the insurance asset and
accrued liability was US$50.6 million.

BorgWarner Inc. makes engine and drivetrain products for the
world's major automotive manufacturers.  Products include
turbochargers, air pumps, timing chain systems, four-wheel-drive
and all-wheel-drive transfer cases (primarily for light trucks and
SUVs), and transmission components.  The Company is headquartered
in Auburn Hills, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Golar LNG Ltd. Subject to Potential Tort Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, Golar LNG Limited may be involved in various
litigation matters, including asbestos and other toxic tort
claims.

No significant asbestos matters were discussed in the Company's
annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 28, 2011.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Golar LNG Limited
Par-la-Ville Place
14 Par-la-Ville Road
Hamilton, Bermuda

Description:
The Company's principal focus and expertise is the transportation
and regasification of LNG and liquefaction of natural gas.  The
Company is engaged in the acquisition, ownership, operation, and
chartering of LNG carriers and FSRUs through its subsidiaries and
the development of liquefaction projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand March 31 Liability Totals $999MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's total asbestos-related liabilities were
US$999 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$1.020
billion as of Dec. 31, 2010, of which US$655.1 million were net
liabilities at March 31, 2011 and US$674.3 million were net
liabilities at Dec. 31, 2010.

The total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries
was US$343.9 million as of March 31, 2011 and US$346.2 million as
of Dec. 31, 2010.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts.  In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants.

The vast majority of those claims has been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane Inc. and generally
allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain
historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily
pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.

Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings
purchased from third-party suppliers.

Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company that provides
products, services and solutions to enhance the quality and
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and
increase industrial productivity and efficiency.  The Company is
based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Subject to Coverage Action in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's subsidiary, Trane Inc., continues to be in
litigation in New Jersey against certain carriers whose policies
it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims.

Trane has now settled with the majority of its insurers,
collectively accounting for about 95% of its recorded asbestos-
related liability insurance receivable as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Most, although not all, of Trane's settlement agreements
constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer
signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified portions of its
costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane agrees to
certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the insurer
signatories certain releases and indemnifications.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information.  The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results.

Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company that provides
products, services and solutions to enhance the quality and
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and
increase industrial productivity and efficiency.  The Company is
based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation continues to be subject to claims,
administrative and legal proceedings, like lawsuits that relate to
contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal
injuries (including asbestos claims), antitrust matters and
employment-related matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 28, 2011.

Eaton Corporation is a diversified power management company with
2010 sales of US$13.7 billion.  The Company has about 70,000
employees in over 50 countries and sells products to customers in
more than 150 countries.  The Company is headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is presently named as a defendant
in about 1,900 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have
contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure
to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust.

These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company.

Mine Safety Appliances Company develops, manufactures and supplies
products that protect people's health and safety.  Its safety
products typically integrate any combination of electronics,
mechanical systems, and advanced materials to protect users
against hazardous or life threatening situations.  The Company is
based in Cranberry Township, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Facing 5,900 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of March 31, 2011, has determined that it
is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
about 5,900 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 28, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust.  From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country.  These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements.

The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable
illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product
manufactured by the Company's former business unit during its
manufacturing period ending in 1958.  Some plaintiffs' counsel
have historically withheld claims under these agreements for later
presentation while focusing their attention on active litigation
in the tort system.

The Company believes that as of March 31, 2011 there are about
550 claims against other defendants which are likely to be
asserted some time in the future against the Company. These claims
are not included in the pending "lawsuits and claims" totals.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
March 31, 2011, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
383,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,900.  Certain of these dispositions have
included deferred amounts payable over a number of years.
Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$26 million at March 31,
2011 (US$26 million at Dec. 31, 2010) and are included in the
foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.

On March 11, 2011, the Company received a verdict in an asbestos
case in which conspiracy claims had been asserted against the
Company.  Of the total nearly US$90 million awarded by the jury
against the four defendants in the case, almost US$10 million in
compensatory damages were assessed against all four defendants,
and US$40 million in punitive damages were assessed against the
Company.

The Company continues to deny the conspiracy allegations in this
case and will vigorously challenge this verdict, if necessary, in
the appellate courts, and, therefore, has made no change to its
asbestos-related liability as of March 31, 2011.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes glass containers.  Its glass containers
include bottles in a wide range of shapes, sizes, and colors, used
to hold beer, wine, liquor, as well as soft drinks, juice, and
other beverages.  The Company is headquartered in Perrysburg,
Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Cites $33MM Payments at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. recorded asbestos-related payments of
US$33 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011,
compared with US$34 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2010.

Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$170 million as of
both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  Long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$273 million as of March 31, 2011 and US$306
million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes glass containers.  Its glass containers
include bottles in a wide range of shapes, sizes, and colors, used
to hold beer, wine, liquor, as well as soft drinks, juice, and
other beverages.  The Company is headquartered in Perrysburg,
Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Posts $36.8MM Liabilities at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. has US$36.8 million as of March 31,
2011 and US$44.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 included in "Other
long-term liabilities" that it has accrued for costs it has
incurred.

These costs were incurred primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets, and penalties it has been or expects to be assessed.

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. provides services to customers and
returns for unitholders primarily through interstate pipeline
transportation and storage of crude oil and liquid petroleum;
gathering, treating, processing and transportation of natural gas
and natural gas liquids through pipelines and related facilities;
and supply, transportation and sales services, including
purchasing and selling natural gas and NGLs.  The Company is
headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $16MM Net Costs at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation recorded net asbestos-related costs of
US$16 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011,
compared with US$15 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2010, according to a Company press release dated
April 29, 2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.572 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$867 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 18, 2011)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$1.572 billion as of March 31, 2011 and US$1.559 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$931 million as of March 31, 2011 and US$930 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

ITT Corporation is a high-technology engineering and manufacturing
company operating in three vital markets: water and fluids
management, global defense and security, and motion and flow
control.  The Company is headquartered in White Plains, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Posts $489MM March 31 Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s total asset retirement and mining
retirement obligations were US$489 million as of March 31, 2011,
of which US$39 million was current and US$450 million was non-
current.

These liabilities primarily relate to nuclear generation plant
decommissioning, land reclamation related to lignite mining,
removal of lignite/coal-fueled plant ash treatment facilities and
generation plant asbestos removal and disposal costs.

Energy Future Holdings Corp. is a holding company with operations
consisting principally of its Texas Competitive Electric Holdings
Company LLC (TCEH) and Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC
subsidiaries.  The Company is headquartered in Dallas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Unit Emerges From Bankruptcy Protection
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc., on April 28, 2011, announced that the
Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.
have funded the Section 524(g) asbestos trust established under
Leslie's Chapter 11 reorganization plan affirmed in February 2011
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according
to a Company press release dated April 28, 2011.

With the funding of the trust, Leslie has now emerged from Chapter
11 protection.  Leslie initially filed a pre-negotiated plan of
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in
July 2010 to permanently resolve its asbestos liability.

Company Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Bill
Higgins, said, "The funding of the trust and the completion of
this process is a tremendous accomplishment for CIRCOR, our
shareholders and our employees.

"With Leslie's emergence from Chapter 11 reorganization, we can
focus our full attention on executing our growth strategy and
further enhancing value for our shareholders."

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products for the industrial,
aerospace and energy markets.  With more than 7,000 customers in
over 100 countries, the Company has a diversified product
portfolio with recognized, market-leading brands.  The Company is
headquartered in Burlington, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Goodyear Drop to 83,300 at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 83,300 pending asbestos
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 83,700
claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on April 29, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
600 new claims filed and 1,000 claims settled/dismissed.  Payments
were US$4 million.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the
Company recorded 1,700 new claims and 8,200 claims
settled/dismissed.  Payments were US$26 million.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the
Company or present in certain of its facilities.

Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts.  To date, the Company has
disposed of about 91,700 claims by defending and obtaining the
dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement.

The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-related liability and
gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about
US$370 million through March 31, 2011 and US$365 million through
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$127
million at March 31, 2011 and US$126 million at Dec. 31, 2010.  At
March 31, 2011, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its gross liabilities, net of its estimate for
probable insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts
by about US$10 million.

The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of
US$67 million as of March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  The Company
expects that about 50 percent of asbestos claim related losses
would be recoverable through insurance through the period covered
by the estimated liability.  Of these amounts, about US$8 million
was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at
March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company said it believes that, at March 31, 2011, it had about
US$170 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products
claims.  A portion of the availability of the excess level
policies is included in the US$67 million insurance receivable
recorded at March 31, 2011.

The Company also had about US$14 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis, and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at
March 31, 2011.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures tires.  The
Company operates its business through four operating segments
representing its regional tire businesses: North American Tire;
Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire; Latin American Tire; and Asia
Pacific Tire.  The Company is headquartered in Akron, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Involved in Exposure Actions in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and certain current and former subsidiaries, along with
numerous other third-party companies as co-defendants, since 2004,
face three multi-party asbestos lawsuits filed in Mississippi.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily
under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the
period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs.
Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi
state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a
result of their removal from state court.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in eight cases involving the Company.  None of the cases
pending against it in Mississippi state court are included within
those selected cases.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
two other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in
litigation in other jurisdictions.

Ensco plc's business consists of four operating segments: (1)
Deepwater, (2) Asia Pacific, (3) Europe and Africa and (4) North
and South America.  Each of the four operating segments provides
one service, contract drilling.  The Company is headquartered in
London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Issues Split Ruling in Gibson Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued split rulings
in a case involving asbestos styled Jerry W. Gibson, Appellant v.
Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Hagel entered judgment in Case No. 09-1363 on Feb. 4, 2011.

Jerry W. Gibson appealed through counsel a March 11, 2009, Board
of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied entitlement to VA
benefits for a bilateral eye disability and for bladder cancer, to
include as secondary to exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Gibson served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from
September 1962 to October 1966.  In October 1966, he was treated
with ophthalmic neosporin for chemical burns to both eyes.  Six
days later, at his separation examination, his eyes were found to
be clinically normal and it was noted that he had "[d]effective
vision corr[ectable] to 20/20 ou by lens."

During a February 1971 re-enlistment examination, Mr. Gibson's
eyes were again determined to be clinically normal, but the
examiner noted that his distant vision in his left eye was 20/30
and was "uncorrectable due to [a] burn at 18 years of age."

In May 2004, Mr. Gibson sought treatment from a private clinician
for dry and itchy eyes.  At that time, he indicated to the
clinician that he suffered chemical burns to his eyes 40 years
earlier.

In June 2004, Mr. Gibson's private doctors discovered a bladder
tumor and diagnosed him with transitional cell carcinoma of his
bladder.  Mr. Gibson received treatment for the tumor, which
included its removal and chemotherapy.

In July 2004, Mr. Gibson applied for disability compensation
benefits for a bilateral eye disorder and bladder cancer.  In his
application, Mr. Gibson attributed his loss of eyesight to the
chemical burn he suffered while in service and his bladder cancer
to "extended exposure to paint and chemicals during" his service
"as an aviation structural mechanic."

In January 2005, a VA regional office denied both claims and Mr.
Gibson filed a Notice of Disagreement in November 2005.  In his
Notice of Disagreement, Mr. Gibson stated that he believed that he
may have been exposed to asbestos while serving aboard various
ships.  Thereafter, in February 2006, Mr. Gibson submitted a
statement in support of his claim in which he asserted that one of
his private doctors informed him that the "amount of paints and
types of chemicals [he] was exposed to in the military could have
caused" his bladder cancer.

After further development, Mr. Gibson appealed to the Board.  In
May 2007, he was afforded a VA eye examination.  In May 2007, he
was afforded a VA genitourinary examination.  In June 2007, the
genitourinary examiner's report was returned as insufficient in
that the examiner failed to "furnish[ ] an opinion as to whether
it was at least as likely as not (50/50 probability) [that] the
bladder cancer was caused by or a result of [Mr. Gibson's]
exposure to asbestos during military service and provide a
rationale for [this] opinion."

After further development, in March 2009 the Board issued the
decision now on appeal, denying Mr. Gibson's claims for VA
benefits for bladder cancer and a bilateral eye disability.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, that portion of the March 11,
2009, Board decision that denied VA benefits for a bilateral eye
disability was affirmed.  That portion of the March 11, 2009,
board decision that denied VA benefits for bladder cancer, to
include as secondary to exposure to asbestos, was vacated and the
matter was remanded for further development and readjudication
consistent with this decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Welsh's Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
upheld the ruling of the Cuyahoga County, Common Pleas Court,
which favored Sylvia Welsh (on behalf of James Welsh) in an
asbestos case filed against Ford Motor Co and other defendants.

The case is styled Sylvia Welsh, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ford
Motor Company, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Judges Mary J. Boyle, Patricia Ann Blackmon and Larry A. Jones
entered judgment in Case No. 94068 on Feb. 3, 2011.

Ford Motor Company appealed a jury verdict finding that Mrs. Walsh
was entitled to participate in the Ohio Workers' Compensation Fund
as a result of the occupational exposure to asbestos sustained by
Mr. Welsh, her deceased husband, resulting in his death from colon
cancer.

Mrs. Welsh commenced the underlying case as an appeal after the
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation denied her request for
widow's benefits of Mr. Welsh.  She alleged that Mr. Welsh
contracted asbestos-related colon cancer as a result of his job
duties at Ford and that his asbestos-related colon cancer was the
direct and proximate cause of his death.

Ford denied that Mr. Welsh's colon cancer was asbestos related and
denied that he contracted it as a result of his employment at
Ford's facility.  The case proceeded to a jury trial where the
following evidence was presented.

Mr. Welsh's career with Ford spanned over 46 years.  He began
working for Ford in 1955 at its Walton Hills facility and
continued working there until December 2001.  He died of colon
cancer on Jan. 24, 2002.

The jury ultimately found in favor of Mrs. Welsh, finding that Mr.
Welsh's colon cancer was asbestos related and that he contracted
it while working at Ford. The jury further found that Mrs. Welsh
is entitled to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund.  The
judgment was affirmed.

Shana A. Samson, Esq., Robert C. McClelland, Esq., of Rademaker,
Matty, McClelland & Greve in Cleveland, Ohio, Timothy J. Krantz,
Esq., of Workers' Compensation Counsel Ford Motor Company in
Brookpark, Ohio, represented Ford.

Shawn M. Acton, Esq., Matthew A. McMonagle, Esq., of Kelley &
Ferraro, LLP in Cleveland, Ohio, represented Mrs. Welsh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Ruling Issued in National College Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Virginia issued split rulings in a case
involving asbestos styled National College of Business and
Technology, Inc. v. C. Ray Davenport, Commissioner of Labor and
Industry.

Judges Frank, Humphreys and McClanahan entered judgment in Record
No. 0938-10-3 on Feb. 15, 2011.

National College of Business and Technology, Inc. was cited for
violating certain asbestos-related safety standards issued by the
Virginia Department of Labor and Industry Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (VOSH). The Circuit Court of the City of
Salem upheld the citations and penalty.

VOSH received an anonymous complaint concerning dust from the
renovation of the College in Salem.  Doug Wiggins, a VOSH
asbestos/lead compliance officer, investigated the complaint at
the College.  He initiated the inspection on Jan. 20, 2004.
During the inspection, Mr. Wiggins was told there had been an
asbestos inspection and report prior to the renovation work.

On one side of the gymnasium, Mr. Wiggins noticed four-inch
diameter holes cut through the concrete floor.  The holes were for
electrical conduit to pass through the floor to the basement.  He
was told there was an old boiler room beneath that area.

Mr. Wiggins then inspected the boiler room located in the basement
and observed some damage suspected to contain asbestos materials,
about seven to eight feet above the floor.  He photographed
insulation material found in pipes and ducts in the boiler room.
He found asbestos-containing material in some of the insulation.

Mr. Wiggins observed a valve or faucet-like handle in the boiler
room, used to regulate the boiler's temperature.  In response to a
question by the circuit court, he indicated that the presence of
the heat valve would cause employees to go to the boiler room.  He
also observed boxes containing College records being stored in the
boiler room.

Upon the conclusion of the inspection, Mr. Wiggins recommended
that the College be cited for certain violations related to the
asbestos found in the boiler room.  VOSH, based on the
recommendations, issued a citation with three subparts.

The circuit court affirmed the Commissioner's citations and the
penalties imposed.  This appeal followed.

The Commissioner and the circuit court correctly found proof by a
preponderance of the evidence that employees were exposed to
asbestos at the College.  Finding no credible evidence to support
a finding of a serious violation, the Appeals Court remanded to
the circuit court with instructions to remand to the Commissioner
for a re-determination of the penalty consistent with this
opinion.

The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Portishead Worker's Death Related to Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
A recent inquest at Flax Bourton Coroners Court heard that the
death of John Saunders, a former Portishead Power Plant worker,
was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, Mercury24 reports.

On Feb. 11, 2010, Mr. Saunders was admitted to Southmead Hospital
to treat a suspected chest infection.  However, after various
scans and tests, it was revealed he had "extensive" lung cancer as
a result of asbestos exposure when he worked at Portishead Power
Plant.

On the same day, Mr. Saunders, a retired groundsman who died at
the age of 89, was admitted to hospital, he died four hours after
a routine procedure which involved inserting a tube down his
throat to collect cell samples.

Dr. Christopher Collins, who carried out the postmortem, said Mr.
Saunders had a "high volume" of blood in his airways, but it was
ruled out that the hospital procedure could have caused this.

Assistant deputy coroner, Gail Elliman, said it was "more likely
than not" the asbestos, which Mr. Saunders was exposed to for
about 20 years, caused the cancer which resulted in the bleed so a
verdict of industrial disease was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Torquay Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Torquay, Devon, England, heard that the death of
Peter Benson, a retired STC electronics engineer from Torquay who
died at the age of 85, was linked to exposure to asbestos at the
Paignton factory, the Herald Express reports.

Mr. Benson's family is suing for damages.

The inquest heard Mr. Benson was routinely exposed to asbestos
when he worked for electronics manufacturer STC Paignton.  He
worked at the firm from 1968 until his retirement in 1987.  His
statement was prepared prior to his death last December 2010.  It
is to be used in a civil claim which is being pursued by his
family.

Between 1981 and 1982, Mr. Benson was in charge of electronics
maintenance and had a team of up to seven technicians working for
him, the inquest heard.  He worked in the hi-tech unit where he
was engaged in calibrating and testing equipment and
troubleshooting.

Mr. Benson's statement, read out by South Devon coroner Ian Arrow,
said, "The lagging was grey, cracked and flaky in areas.  Some had
chicken wire in them.  It had been there for many years and it was
clear they had deteriorated over time."

Mr. Benson was admitted to Torbay Hospital on Dec. 11, 2010 after
suffering from pneumonia.  He died on Dec. 14, 2010.  A post-
mortem examination confirmed the cause of death as mesothelioma
and bronco-pneumonia.

Confirmation that a civil claim is being handled on behalf of the
Benson family by Irwin Mitchell solicitors was given at the
inquest.  Mr. Arrow recorded a verdict of industrial-related
illness death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Anderson Case Held April 12 in Trenton
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in an asbestos case filed by Bonnie Anderson against
ExxonMobil was held last April 12, 2011 in the New Jersey state
Supreme Court in Trenton, N.J., The Star-Ledger reports.

Mrs. Anderson learned her US$7 million verdict against ExxonMobil
for her deadly disease was allowed to stand after the state
Supreme Court declined to take up the appeal brought by the oil
giant.

The 62-year-old Mrs. Anderson said, "It's bittersweet because I'm
going back into chemotherapy.  I wish I could tell you it was a
glorious day to learn this but you take life in perspective.  I'd
rather not be sick."

Mrs. Anderson contended -- and a jury agreed in 2008 -- that she
contracted mesothelioma by coming in regular contact with the
asbestos-laden clothes her husband wore while working at Exxon's
Linden Bayway Refinery or through her own work there.  It also
argued this should have been a worker's compensation matter,
something that would have limited how much she could have received
in damages.

Ms. Anderson worked at the refinery from 1975 to 1986 mostly as an
electrician in jobs that did not put her in contact with asbestos.
Her husband, who retired in 2004, does not have signs of the
disease.

At trial and in its argument to the Appellate Division, ExxonMobil
insisted there was no way to know how Mrs. Anderson contracted the
disease.

As one of its witnesses, ExxonMobil called an expert in internal
and pulmonary medicine who testified only a few hundred cases like
Mrs. Anderson's in women can be linked to past asbestos exposure.

Mrs. Anderson claimed her exposure to asbestos came from washing
her husband's clothes.  For the first six years of John Anderson's
quarter-century with the refinery, his job involved removing
insulation to fix pumps and filters.

Mr. Anderson regularly came home with his clothes covered in
insulation dust -- a dust that Mrs. Anderson always shook out
before tossing his clothes in the washing machine.  She was
diagnosed in 2001 with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma.

Since then, Mrs. Anderson has undergone two surgeries, several
blood transfusions and multiple rounds of chemotherapy involving
five different types of drugs.  She said she starts another round
in July 2011 on yet another drug.  Her radiation protocol gave her
leukemia.

In addition to the US$7 million for Mrs. Anderson, the jury
awarded her husband US$500,000.  Since being diagnosed, she has
worked to raise awareness of the disease.  She was instrumental in
getting September 26 designated state and national Mesothelioma
Awareness Day.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Releases Draft Estimates of Mont. Toxicity
---------------------------------------------------------------
At a public meeting at the Libby Memorial Center, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency presented new draft toxicity
estimates on the specific type of asbestos in Libby and Troy,
Mont., according to an EPA press release dated May 3, 2011.

These toxicity estimates, when final, will help secure the best
path forward for asbestos cleanup and protection of public health
at the Libby Superfund site.  The EPA is releasing this draft
information earlier than usual in the scientific evaluation
process to be more transparent and to more fully engage the
community in the review process.

The data are preliminary and could change until this review
process is complete, which will include review by independent
scientists.

Through this action, EPA is delivering on a promise made to the
community to develop a scientific analysis of Libby Amphibole
asbestos.  Based on requests from the community, the final
toxicity estimates for Libby Amphibole asbestos will be used to
develop EPA's final risk assessment and cleanup decisions.

EPA will use these toxicity estimates to evaluate risks to adults,
teens and children who may be exposed to Libby Amphibole during
activities such as housework, playing in the yard or at school,
walking, bicycling or working in an office or outside.

Although EPA has made significant progress in helping to remove
the threat of asbestos in the land and air, and with it, the
increased risks of lung cancer and other respiratory problems,
actual and potential releases of amphibole asbestos remain a
concern in Libby.  EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson in 2009
declared a public health emergency in Libby, a first-of-its-kind
action that recognized serious impacts to public health.

Jim Martin, EPA's Regional Administrator in Denver, said, "For
more than a decade, EPA has worked in this community to clean up
the pollution left behind by 40 plus years of mining operations.
Under this administration, EPA has stepped up its commitment to
provide the best science to finish the job of protecting the
health and future of the people of Libby.  Once we finalize these
toxicity estimates, they will help guide remaining cleanup actions
and identify exposure prevention practices to keep people safe."

Paul Anastas, EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development said, "We decided to provide residents with this draft
toxicity estimates as early as possible to ensure that the
community is fully informed and engaged.  This is a major step
forward in establishing the science to improve the cleanup of
asbestos in Libby and the protection of the families that live
here."

The draft toxicity estimates released on May 3, 2011 confirm EPA's
earlier assessments of the effectiveness of cleanup actions in
reducing exposures in Libby.  Specifically, current ambient air
concentrations of Libby Amphibole do not appear to result in
levels of risk above EPA Superfund targets, which are set to
achieve a cleanup level that results in less than a one in 10,000
risk of developing lung cancer or a hazard index less than one for
adverse non-cancer health impacts such as shortness of breath and
chest pain.

However, the draft toxicity estimates also indicate that some
indoor and outdoor activities that increase the release of
asbestos into the air may result in levels of risk that exceed EPA
targets.  These draft findings, while not final, underscore the
need for additional cleanup actions and continued adherence to EPA
recommendations that prevent soils from being disturbed, such as
watering yards before mowing or digging.

Further assessment of exposure, peer review and dialogue with the
community will provide additional perspective regarding remaining
risks and the best strategy for reducing them.

The announcement is the latest step in EPA's continuing efforts to
protect human health by reducing exposure to a unique form of
asbestos called Libby Amphibole asbestos.  Since 1999, EPA has
worked to reduce risk by focusing on removing the largest sources
of exposure.  To date, the EPA has spent more than US$330 million
and has safely removed more than 825,000 cubic yards of asbestos-
contaminated soil from source areas at 1,463 commercial and
residential properties.  EPA plans to perform about 150
residential cleanups this summer.

EPA has focused on reducing the largest sources of contamination,
including residences, schools, roads, processing and disposal
areas, and parks and ball fields.  These efforts have achieved
significant reductions in air concentrations of asbestos fibers in
Libby.  Those levels are 10,000 times lower since the company left
the community.

The Libby Asbestos site includes portions of the towns of Libby
and Troy and an inactive vermiculite mine seven miles northeast of
the town of Libby.  Vermiculite had been mined at the Libby site
since the 1920s.

In 1963, W. R. Grace & Co. bought the Zonolite mining operations.
The vermiculite from the Libby mine was contaminated with
asbestos.  The mine closed in 1990.  EPA started cleanup
activities in 2000 and in 2002 the area was listed as a Superfund
site.

While no precise statistics exist, vermiculite insulation produced
from Libby vermiculite was widely distributed throughout the U.S.
and it could potentially be present in millions of homes.

EPA recommends that the insulation be left in place undisturbed.
If the vermiculite insulation is undisturbed in attics and walls,
it is not likely to present a risk to people in the home.

EPA does not believe that cleanup action on vermiculite insulation
is needed outside of Libby or Troy at this time.  Once adopted,
the toxicity estimates will apply to other locations in the
country where Libby Amphibole asbestos exposures may be of
concern.

EPA is working with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, which is providing asbestos-related medical care to area
residents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown Case v. 23 Firms Filed April 19 in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Brown and Marjorie Brown, on April 19, 2011, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 23 defendant corporations in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Brown claimed he developed malignant mesothelioma after
working around a variety of asbestos containing products.
Defendants include: Able Supply Co., AMF, B&B Engineering and
Supply Co., Chevron, Cleaver Brooks, Crown Cork and Seal Co.,
Deltak, Flint Hills Resources, Flint Hills Resources LLC, Foster
Wheeler Energy Corp., Guardline Inc., Huntsman LLC, Huntsman
Petrochemical Corp., Koch Industries, Met Life Group, Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Co., Motiva Co., Motiva Enterprises,
Riley Power, Texaco, Triplex, Weil-McClain Boilers and Zurn
Industries.

Mr. Brown was exposed to the asbestos products during his career
as a laborer, helper, iron worker, boilermaker and supervisor at
Texaco from October 1969 until his retirement in 2007, according
to the complaint.

The Browns allege the defendant companies caused Mr. Brown's
disease because they failed to adequately test their products and
failed to warn of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

The Browns seek unspecified damages, plus interest at the legal
rate and other relief to which they may be entitled.  Tina H.
Bradley, Esq., of Hobson and Bradley in Beaumont will be
representing them.

Case No. E1890-807 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in Pneumo Abex Case Heard April 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An oral argument on an asbestos case involving Juanita Rodarmel,
Honeywell International Inc. and Pneumo Abex was held April 28,
2011 in McLean County, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In the oral argument, Justice John Turner poked holes in a
conspiracy theory that produced a US$2.5 million verdict for
asbestos lawyer James Wylder, Esq., of Bloomington.

Jurors who believed the theory pinned liability for Ms. Rodarmel's
mesothelioma on Honeywell International and Pneumo Abex, a remnant
of American Brake and Block.

Although jurors blamed Honeywell for manipulating research 80
years ago and suppressing research 60 years ago, Judge Turner
could not see any connection.  Justices John McCullough and Thomas
Appleton also heard the argument.

Mr. Wylder has won a series of verdicts in asbestos conspiracy
trials, including a recent jury award of US$90 million against
Honeywell and Pneumo Abex.

At Ms. Rodarmel's trial, before Circuit Judge Scott Drazeswki,
jurors awarded US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$500,000
in punitive damages.

Ms. Rodarmel alleged exposure to asbestos fibers her husband
brought home on his clothing.  At oral argument, Honeywell lawyer
Coleen Baime, Esq., of Chicago said Judge Drazewski excluded
evidence that other companies engaged in similar conduct.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former John Laing Worker Awarded GBP80T Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Najib, a 71-year-old pensioner who had worked as a joiner
for construction firm John Laing plc, was awarded GBP80,000 in
asbestos-related compensation, London 24 reports.

Mr. Najib was an employee of John Laing Plc from 1974 to 1980.  It
was during his employment with the company that he breathed in
asbestos, which caused him to develop mesothelioma.

Mr. Najib was diagnosed with mesothelioma in late 2009 and is now
in considerable pain, relying on palliative care for the remainder
of his life.

At a High Court hearing, Mrs. Justice Nicola Davies awarded Mr.
Najib GBP80,000 for his pain and suffering, as well as other sums
for specialist equipment and alternative treatments, resulting in
a payout of more than GBP175,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morris Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 86-year-old Elizabeth
Stephenson, who used to work at the Morris Motor car factory in
Cowley, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos,
The Oxford Times reports.

Mrs. Stephenson worked at the car plant for six months during
the late 1950s.  She died at Sobell House Hospice, Headington, on
Dec. 9, 2010.  She had suffered a string of health problems,
including diabetes, anaemia and cancer of the colon, bowel and
lung.  She had a stroke in 2010.

Mrs. Stephenson's daughter, Liz Tong, of Bicester, said her mother
had worked in the trim shop at the car plant, now the BMW Mini
factory.

Coroner Nicholas Gardiner told Oxford Coroner's Court, "On the
balance of probability, she was exposed to asbestos at work at the
motor factory. It is well known for that type of problem.  I shall
be recording that she died from an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bristol Office Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Flax Bourton Coroner's Court heard that the death of
87-year-old Maureen Hutton, a retired office typist worker from
Whitchurch, Bristol, England, was linked to asbestos exposure, the
Evening Post reports.

The inquest heard that Mrs. Hutton died on Nov. 21, 2010 at the
Bristol Royal Infirmary.  She had been diagnosed with potential
mesothelioma in September 2010 and her condition deteriorated
quickly.

Mrs. Hutton said that the only time in her life that she could
recall having worked or lived near asbestos was in the 1950s when
she worked as a shorthand typist in a factory in Cheltenham.  She
worked at the Alfred Miles Fire Appliances factory from 1951 until
1953, where asbestos was used to make fire engines.

Mrs. Hutton said she remembered the factory being very dusty, and
that she would always have had her door open onto the factory
floor.

A post mortem found that the cause of Mrs. Hutton's death was
pulmonary embolism -- a blockage of the main artery of the lung --
and malignant mesothelioma.

Terry Moore, assistant deputy coroner, recorded a verdict of
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Posts $1.7MM ARO Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp.'s Central subsidiary, at March 31,
2011, recorded an asset retirement obligation liability of
US$1.7 million and a corresponding regulatory asset of
US$1 million.

Central recorded an ARO for the remediation of asbestos existing
on its system.  The asbestos existing on Central's system is
primarily in building materials and pipe coatings used prior to
the Clean Air Act of 1973 that established the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) that regulates
the use of asbestos.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the amount of the regulatory asset was US$1
million and the related ARO liability on the accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheet was US$1.6 million.

Southern Star Central Corp. operates as a holding company for its
regulated natural gas pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  The Company is headquartered in Owensboro, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aaron Action Open v. Hercules Offshore in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to face the asbestos case
entitled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company et al.
Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones County, Miss.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course of
their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.  The
complaints name certain of TODCO's subsidiaries and certain
subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent to whom TODCO may owe
indemnity, and other unaffiliated defendant companies, including
companies that allegedly manufactured drilling related products
containing asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranges from around 20 to 70.  The complaints allege that
the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing
products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and
other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  All of these cases were assigned to a special
master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by
plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served against
specific defendants.

About 700 questionnaires were returned and the remaining
plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire reply, have had
their suits dismissed without prejudice.  Of the respondents,
about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and its former
parent which could lead to claims against either company, even
though many of these plaintiffs did not state in their
questionnaire answers that the employment actually involved
exposure to asbestos.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct claim
as identified in the questionnaire answers.  Defendants not
identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the
plaintiffs' litigation.  To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as
a defendant in their amended complaints.

It is possible that some of the plaintiffs who have filed amended
complaints and have not named TODCO as a defendant may attempt to
add TODCO as a defendant in the future when case discovery begins
and greater attention is given to each individual plaintiff's
employment background.  The Company has not determined which
entity would be responsible for such claims under the Master
Separation Agreement between TODCO and its former parent.

More than three years has passed since the court ordered that
amended complaints be filed by each individual plaintiff, and the
original complaints.  No additional plaintiffs have attempted to
name TODCO as a defendant and such actions may now be time-barred.

Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water drilling and marine
services to the oil and natural gas exploration and production
industry globally through its Domestic Offshore, International
Offshore, Inland, Domestic Liftboats, International Liftboats and
Delta Towing segments.  The Company is headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynolds Units Still Face Parsons Case in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to be
party to litigation involving asbestos, of which the case is
styled Parsons v. A C & S, Inc.

The case was filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio County,
W.Va.  In Parsons, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers, U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking
to recover US$1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages.

The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.

In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Reynolds American Inc. is the holding company for cigarette maker
(RJR Tobacco) and smokeless tobacco manufacturer (American Snuff
Company).  The Company is headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Still Has Occupational Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation is still involved in occupational
claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as
well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive motion).

These claims are often not caused by a specific accident or event
but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.
Many such claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades.

Norfolk Southern Corporation's unit, Norfolk Southern Railway,
transports freight over a network consisting of about 20,000 route
miles in 22 states in the eastern, southeastern, and mid-western
U.S. and in Canada (Ontario and Quebec).  The Company is
headquartered in Norfolk, Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Various Rulings in Breedlove Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued
various rulings in an asbestos case filed by Eva D. Breedlove
against CSX Transportation, Inc. and other defendants.

The case, which is part of Asbestos Products Liability Litigation
(MDL Docket No. 875) is Eva D. Breedlove, et al. v. CSC
Transportation, Inc., et al.

U.S. Magistrates Judge M. Faith Angell entered judgment in Case
No. Civil Action No. 09-cv-75120 on Feb. 10, 2011.

CSX Transportation's Motion in Limine To Exclude Testimony of
Arthur Frank was denied.  CSX Transportation's Motion for
Protective Order was granted in part and denied in part.

Eva Breedlove, Executrix of the Estate of William Breedlove,
brought this action under Georgia's premises liability law.  She
alleged that her husband, William Breedlove, was harmfully exposed
to asbestos in 1962 through 1995 when he visited CSX
Transportation's Tilford and Waycross properties for the purpose
of selling insurance to CSX Transportation's employees.

Mr. Breedlove was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2008 and
he died six months later in August 2008.

CSX Transportation moves this Court to exclude all testimony from
Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Arthur Frank, arguing that his opinions in
this matter lack a sufficient factual basis and should be excluded
under a Daubert inquiry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Issues Various Rulings in Baker Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, issued
various rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Thomas
Franklin Baker, Jr., Plaintiff v. Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation, a/k/a Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Murphy entered judgment in Civil Action No. 11-8-
GPM on Feb. 7, 2011.

This matter was before the Court on the motion for remand to state
court brought by Thomas Franklin Baker, Jr. and the motion to stay
brought by Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation.

In this case, Mr. Baker sought damages for lung cancer that he has
contracted allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos.  This
case was filed originally in the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., and Foster Wheeler, which
was sued individually and as successor-in-interest to C.H.
Wheeler, has removed the case to this Court.

Mr. Baker in turn has filed what he styled an "emergency" motion
for remand of this case to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  Foster Wheeler had requested a stay of these
proceedings pending transfer of this case to a multidistrict
litigation proceeding by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML).

To conclude, Foster Wheeler's motion for a stay was denied.  Mr.
Baker's motion for remand was granted.  This case was remanded to
the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Ill., for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Andrew J. Balcer, Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville & Flint
LLC in Glen Carbon, Ill., represented Plaintiff.

Ashley M. Felton, Esq., Daniel M. Finer, Esq., James L. Svajgl,
Esq., of Segal, McCambridge et al. in Chicago represented
Defendants.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A.
Agravante, Ronald Sy, Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug,
Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *